(a) Bigotry is already normalized in the United States. The president is a bigot and almost half the country voted for him. This is another negative effect of deplatforming: if you live in a liberal city and only frequent Reddit/Facebook, you live in an echo chamber where you don't have any visibility into what's normal.
(b) The legitimacy of a platform is based on what is said there, not the other way around. You view Voat as less legitimate than Reddit because you disagree with what is said on Voat more than you disagree with what is said on Reddit. If someone said something bigoted on Reddit, would you view it as more legitimate? No? Then why do you think anyone else sees it that way?
>The president is a bigot and almost half the country voted for him
That's not entirely true. About half of the pool of eligible voters who participated in the election voted for Trump[0], but they accounted for around 20% of the population[1].
Not that I disagree about bigotry being normalized in the US, it has been since the founding of the country. But I think the evidence of that isn't Trump's election so much as Trump even making it to the primary. His election, arguably, came about due to a system designed to meet the interests of the parties, and not the will of people at large.
What did he do to call him a bigot? Enforcing immigration laws? Banning travel from countries where we can't vet people properly? Declining to have the military pay for people's sexual reassignment surgeries? Not letting people on welfare earn citizenship? Restricting a refugee system that was being abused?
One of the sources of polarization is that the definition of hate and racism and bigotry seems to be broad and expanding on the left, while on the right it is narrow and static.
Thanks for the link. The story about the 1975 housing discrimination case does indeed look like Trump Management was racist. I think the question is was this driven by personal racial animus or by competitive business considerations? Also to what degree was Donald Trump setting these policies versus his dad Fred? (Donald was 29 or 30 at the time).
The rest of the article is just stuff that really isn't that clear cut as to whether Trump is actually racist. I think the last quote from the article is a good summary of the divide:
>>>KWAME JACKSON: America’s always trying to find this gotcha moment that shows Donald Trump is racist—you know, let’s find this one big thing. Let’s look for that one time when he burned a cross in someone’s yard so we can now finally say it. People refuse to see the bread crumbs that are already in front of you, leading you to grandma’s house.
If you don't like a guy yeah all you need is bread crumbs to crucify him. If you do, especially given the choice was Trump or Hilary Clinton, then you're going to need more than bread crumbs to convince people he's racist. So the original comment, that Trumps election means 50% of the country is fine with bigotry, is just not true. There are people who support Trump who honestly do not believe they are tolerating bigotry.
You listed the 'very fine people' hoax so I don't think your judgement is very well calibrated here. There's a bunch of quotes with no context and some things that not even the most expansive definition of racism would cover. Tweeting about the squad? Leaving andrew jackson on the $20? Are you saying that land seizures and killing of white farmers don't actually happen in south africa? If the only source is 'the new york times reported' then Im sorry I just dont believe it after the russia nonsense.
Please stop posting flamewar comments to HN. It's not what this site is for, regardless of who you support or oppose, and you've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly.
There is no whataboutism in my response. Im honestly not sure what you're talking about. Maybe you mean the thing about south africa? The point is: how is it evidence of bigotry to be worried about land seizures in south africa? Thats not whataboutism, that's pointing out a non sequitur.
The rest of your post is ad hominem.
(b) The legitimacy of a platform is based on what is said there, not the other way around. You view Voat as less legitimate than Reddit because you disagree with what is said on Voat more than you disagree with what is said on Reddit. If someone said something bigoted on Reddit, would you view it as more legitimate? No? Then why do you think anyone else sees it that way?