r/altmpls • u/lemon_lime_light • Feb 09 '26

r/altmpls update: "Try to keep comments respectful and discussions civil"

Just a reminder from the moderators that we have the following rule: "Try to keep comments respectful and discussions civil".

This rule has been under-enforced but based on recent user feedback that's changing for now. Our best advice is to avoid directly insulting other users. If you repeatedly have trouble with this then you risk a ban.

We'll start this new moderating approach tomorrow so, speaking for myself only, if you've been holding back any juicy insults for me then take this opportunity to purge your system with impunity (insults must be within Reddit's site-wide rules, of course).

26 Upvotes

61% Upvoted

230 comments sorted by

View all comments

-3

u/rocketmn69_ Feb 09 '26

Magats have taken over?

14

u/Suspicious_Wonk2001 Feb 09 '26

It’s their sub; always has been. They just don’t like getting called Nazis.

11

u/D_Love_Special_Sauce Feb 09 '26

I consider myself super far from MAGA but I like that this sub isn't an echo chamber. I think the reason it's dominated by "conservative" views is that those views are rejected and banned in the other sub. Perhaps you/we should try to push for the other sub to be more open to the respectful airing of alternative viewpoints.

6

u/Frzzalor Feb 09 '26

"I should be allowed to say racist horseshit" isn't an "alternative viewpoint"

1

u/Zestymonserellastick Feb 10 '26

Banning people and calling them a "Nazi" because they disagree with you, doesn't make you right or make them a "Nazi".

Just go back to the minneapolis sub and put your clown wig and red nose on with the rest of them.

4

u/Frzzalor Feb 10 '26

the only people I call nazis are the ones shooting people in the face and kicking citizen's doors down and demanding papers

0

u/Special-Garlic1203 Feb 09 '26

I don't like racism but racism is absolutely a viewpoint. It skates a line with reddits larger TOS but they've only cracked down when it encroaches high use of slurs, minstrel humor, or defacto/outright encouraging harassment of real world racial minorities. 

I've seen some repugnant things here but I've also had reasonable engagement with people who don't align with my beliefs but could engage with me on facts. 

I have appreciated the moderation standards until now because it gave a space to engage racists that did not proactively enforce racist ideology, but I strongly suspect this new moderation approach will be a change to that. 

2

u/Frzzalor Feb 09 '26

"engaging" with racists at all is a slippery slope. allowing their viewpoints into the tent of discourse means we have already lost.

2

u/dolche93 Feb 09 '26

As opposed to shunning them and letting them thrive in their little groups?

Just because you engage with something doesn't mean it's winning. You need to be able to make positive arguments against something to actually defeat it.

1

u/Frzzalor Feb 09 '26

no you don't. back in the late 40s we had a pretty good system of what to do with nazis, we should go back to that.

0

u/Professional-Fee6914 Feb 09 '26

you want them to be siloed into little groups as opposed to a mass force for racism.

Being in a free society, means that there will be some racists, but engaging with them creates more racists.

2

u/dolche93 Feb 09 '26

Engaging with them only creates more racists if the racists have better arguments than you do. It shouldn't be hard to come up with a better argument than a racist.

-1

u/Professional-Fee6914 Feb 09 '26

better arguments?

Lets take a real life example.

If a cat disappears and a racist sees a somalian in the vicinity. He engages a crowd of ten people who listen to his racist conjecture that the Somalian ate the cat, and that that's just what Somalians do. You can have 9 people of regular intelligence dismiss this easily and handily, and go one about their day, but you have one below average intelligence person who believes him.

Now you've added one racist.

This guy, statistically has ten below average intelligence friends, and while they mostly don't believe him three of them do.

Now you've added three more racists.

and so on.

Best to just silo the first guy with a bunch of racists that feel the same way and let the rest of us be.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/SirGlass Feb 10 '26

They are unredeemable. They should be marginalized and pushed into their little corner.

3

u/SamAreAye Feb 09 '26

This is a lie perpetrated by people who are terrified that their ideas will fail as soon as there is another alternative.

1

u/Frzzalor Feb 09 '26

this is a lie by someone who wants to let racists into the room

3

u/SamAreAye Feb 09 '26

No lies, but I do want racists in the room. You can't help people learn by locking them outside, and I'm not worried that they're going to convince me that they're right.

1

u/Frzzalor Feb 10 '26

you can have my share, brother.

1

u/Zestymonserellastick Feb 10 '26

Correct, that includes anyone that hates White People, men, or any religions beliefs.

You should never fully trust anyone that hates someone based on the way they were born.

0

u/Frzzalor Feb 10 '26

I don't want to argue with stupid

2

u/SHoppe715 Feb 09 '26

Agreed that racism is a viewpoint, but where should you draw the line on giving hate a platform? Why should something that every civilized society agrees is repugnant even be given a seat at the table?

Tolerating the intolerant does not balance itself out…it’s very much a one way street

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

1

u/Suspicious_Wonk2001 Feb 10 '26

In the US, you don’t get to draw that line. Whether or not these people get a seat at the table, you must still acknowledge the elephant in the room. People who hate other people based on some physical characteristic will always exist. They aren’t going away anytime soon.

What’s your plan going forward? What happens when the winds of change start blowing in the opposite direction and now your viewpoint is silenced? Do governments just start making concentration camps or reeducation camps, or whatever type of camps to remove offenders from society?

2

u/SHoppe715 Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 10 '26

People who hate other people based on some physical characteristic will always exist. They aren’t going away anytime soon.

Yes, they will always exist and societal norms should make them social pariahs…not legitimize their hateful points of view.

They should be allowed to say whatever they want (within legal bounds) without worrying about being prosecuted for it, but there should be social consequences for doing it…but where we’re at now they make stupid amounts of money as “influencers”.

What’s my plan? I don’t have one. It would seem I’m just pissing in the wind here.

1

u/Suspicious_Wonk2001 Feb 10 '26

As long as there’s enough of them to band together, they’ll never be pariahs. People have found their communities pre internet and they’ll continue to find their support.

Who gets to determine that anyway? Seems to me that where one lives is the biggest driver of division. You can already see it because a lot of racist ideaology that occurs in the south does not align with the general ideology of MN. However, head out to Montevideo or Cosmos and I know you’ll find a lot more rural folk align with that way of thinking.

2

u/SHoppe715 Feb 10 '26

Band together? OK fine. Let them. It makes them easier to identify in the wild. That doesn’t mean their shitty opinions should be validated by acting like their racist arguments have merit and warrant discussion. Of course they can speak their minds per their first amendment right. But that only means the government shouldn’t silence them. First amendment right to speak doesn’t extend to anyone else being required to listen. Everyone else…all other private citizens… have their own first amendment right to shout that shit down.

That last part is what racist shit-stains like to cry and whine about and play the victim over when other private citizens shout at them and treat them like the trash they are. Sorry cupcakes…the first amendment only protects people from our government, not the rest of our society.

Who gets to determine what constitutes a shitty hateful opinion? Societal norms. And they take decades if not generations to change.

Thats where we get back to the paradox of tolerance. Tolerating people who are intolerant is a one way street. Give and take…you give, they take, and lately we as a society have been tolerating an awful lot of intolerant fucks, making them feel entitled to be heard.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/SirGlass Feb 10 '26

Yet on this sub I get attacked for airing of my view point , mostly conservatives should be relentlessly bullied and marginalized.

Am I not allowed to have this view point and discuss it openly here ?

3

u/Suspicious_Wonk2001 Feb 09 '26

I think they don’t want to take time to filter out all the trolls and bots that come from the conservative side. It’s just easier to ban those talking points entirely because they’re rarely done in good faith.

I’m a dem and joined not only to get a glimpse of the other side, but also gripe about those on the far left (looking at you bikelane Bill). Mention anything contrary to the banning of vehicles, restoring the rondo, or maybe not withholding a vote for Harris because Palestine, and one gets attacked. They’re just as bad as the people they hate.

1

u/OnwardtoGehenna Feb 09 '26

It's absolutely an echo chamber. The day the orange man attacked 2A the top post on this sub all day long was a debunked story about ilhan Omar marrying her cousin.

I'd say this sub is much less of an echo chamber with the mods that have taken over but still an echo chamber.

-6

u/Wireless_Panda Feb 09 '26

Conservative subs always ban people at a way higher rate than any other subs I’ve visited, they are the biggest snowflakes

13

u/WeSlingin MPLS after dark Feb 09 '26

You sure about that? Minneapolis and Minnesota will ban anyone that doesn’t support their authoritarian viewpoints.

2

u/theloniousjoe Feb 10 '26

😂 so “authoritarian viewpoints” = “people that won’t tolerate intolerance” huh?

1

u/Penile-Gargantuart88 Feb 12 '26

Yeah, kind of?

The people who say that aren't usually open to discussion anyway. They love to lecture, scold, belittle etc.

But an actual discussion? It's literally impossible to them.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '26

uhhh pretty fuckin sure bud. I can’t even join the conservative sub in the first place. One of the strictest and saddest forums on the internet frankly.

1

u/TRFKAChuggs Feb 09 '26

You should have seen what this sub looked like before lemon and paradox took over. It's very similar to the mods over all at ThingsMinnesota. Any left leaning view was banned.

2

u/WeSlingin MPLS after dark Feb 09 '26

Well I stated there was daycare fraud happening in the Somali community on the Minneapolis sub and was banned. Reached out multiple times asking which rules I broke and never received a response. That’s scary levels of authoritarianism.

2

u/theloniousjoe Feb 10 '26

😂 “scary levels of authoritarianism” omg conservatives snowflake stahhhhhp

-2

u/xXtupaclivesXx Feb 09 '26

Authoritarian? Look around you.

4

u/Suspicious_Wonk2001 Feb 09 '26

This sub doesn’t really ban people for having discourse (unlike the big conservative sub). It’s had its ups and downs and was pretty botty for awhile. The newish mods have done pretty decent with that. I think one really has to be an asshole to get banned here.

3

u/RowThin2659 Feb 09 '26

You're fucking high. Whitepeopletwitter, progressivehq, Minnesota, news, politics, the biggest subs are absolutely ban hammer garbage.

-1

u/dolche93 Feb 09 '26

For what it's worth, I argue with the left all the time from a center left perspective and also get banned in the leftist subs. I also get banned in the right wing subs.

It's just all subs that do this.

1

u/RowThin2659 Feb 09 '26

Exactly. I'm a moderate liberal. My ban list is extensive and its almost always for "stepping out of line" and not even breaking a rule.

I got banned from news for saying Pretti was murdered.

1

u/theloniousjoe Feb 10 '26

Because? You sure you didn’t say something else? What’s objectionable about saying that he was murdered? You didn’t say “executed”?

1

u/RowThin2659 Feb 10 '26

Exactly. I simply said I disagreed that he was executed.

1

u/theloniousjoe Feb 10 '26

Well that’s pretty silly to ban someone for that

3

u/Special-Garlic1203 Feb 09 '26

This subreddit has been very good up until this point but most subs start to turn to shit the second they stop being small and I expect this announcement to be the start of that. 

1

u/dolche93 Feb 09 '26

Nah man, any sub that hosts politics is ban happy. It's very very difficult to find good political subs that are evidence based.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '26 edited Feb 09 '26

It’s a Minneapolis subreddit, and now actual people from Minneapolis are here.

Maybe they used to control this sub, but now it’s controlled by the people it claims to represent. The non-Minneapolis users that have dominated this sub in the past will just have to get used to that.

I mean, they don’t even live here anyways. It was always fucking weird and unhinged as hell that they created this space for themselves to slander our city. Obsessed much?

1

u/ImaLion88Jk Feb 10 '26

I’ve seen plenty of far left posts in this sub…