Continuing Social Media Censorship (Reddit) and the Inversion of Our Moral Values
By 2025, Reddit’s left-wing bias is undeniable—both in user demographics and in the increasingly aggressive censorship by volunteer moderators. But how did we get here?
How Reddit Became the Internet’s Most Left-Wing Platform – MSN See also: How Reddit Became the Internet’s Most Left-Wing Platform
I recently posted my first article on Reddit and within a few minutes received an ungrammatical response that sometimes articles posted there get deleted. The next day the article was in fact deleted. The article was an analysis of a brief 7-minute youtube.com video about a woman who realized that she lost her boyfriend because she had failed to respect certain commonsense relationship boundaries by allegedly innocently sleeping in the same bed overnight as her “best male friend”. There was no reason to censor the article. Despite the prima facia light nature of the topic, the youtube.com video provides the opportunity for an analysis of the inversion of moral values, the conflation of being a “good person” with being a bad person that is rotting our culture from within at every level. Since these decadent progressive ideas are indefensible, social media, including Facebook, Twitter and other platforms, are, despite their continuing denials, still censoring conservatives in favor of the “woke” or flower child mush typically celebrated on these platforms. Since such juvenile progressive ideas are indefensible, and they know it, the progressives and their flower-children siblings have no alternative but to censor rational conservative criticism. In social media, the “mainstream” “news” media, in our schools and what’s left of our universities, in our “entertainment,” even in “professional” journals, ever effort at every level of society must be made to prevent people from being allowed to think things through.
Here is the censored article itself just as it was posted on Reddit:
Crossing Boundaries and Destroying Relationships
I underestimated what trust means, it does not mean you can do whatever you want. Trust means you protect the relationship even when no one is watching.
Sue, the narrator of the present 7 video titled “I Told Him It Was Fine That I Slept in the Same Bed as My Male Best Friend … He Disappeared” after she realized she had destroyed her excellent relationship with her loving boyfriend.
Multiple videos have appeared on Youtube.com now and elsewhere about women who have ruined their relationships because of inappropriate behavior with other men. There are videos about male cheaters as well but these appear to be fewer in number. It is important to acknowledge at the outset that men can be just as bad in this respect as women, but one of the videos about a woman in an exclusive relationship is the subject here. Many of these videos are represented as based on true stories although no proof is provided of that. However, some of the better videos, like the one discussed here, deal with realistic real-world situations, specifically, casually ignoring common sense boundaries that ruins relationships.
The present video concerns a young woman who innocently wants to stay overnight at her best male’s friend’s (not an ex lover) apartment just to comfort him because, after a painful breakup, he is “spiraling out of control.” The video is wistfully and sadly narrated by the woman herself, not by a neutral third party. Since she never givers her name, let us call her Sue, call her bf Tom and call her “best male friend” Eric. The official moral of Sue’s story is that she only came to understand after Tom left her the next day that even though the night was entirely innocent, sleeping in another man’s bed crosses a relationship-ending boundary. That is, her bf broke up with her not because she had physical intimacy with her best male friend that night, but because the mere act of sleeping in Eric’s bed with him, even if innocent, justifies Tom in ending the relationship. Unfortunately, if one reads Sue’s words closely, one can see that she admits that some kind of physical intimacy did occur with her male friend that night and also that she has an inappropriate emotional bond with him. In brief, since Sue narrates the story she can describe it any way she wants to make herself look better than she deserves.
Before one moves onto the main argument of this article, however, one must deal with the context that sets up Sue’s betrayal. Sue’s claim is that since Eric is “spiraling out of control” after a breakup with his gf, she needs to stay with him overnight time to comfort him. Unfortunately, that makes no sense. It is not Sue’s job to stay all night with Eric to comfort him. Painful breakups occur to everyone and most people just learn to man-up or woman-up and get through the hard times themselves. It’s called growing up, and, unfortunately, Eric had not grown up. How long is Sue expected to babysit this man-child before he grows up and learns to handle life’s normal blows … until he is 40, or 50, or 60? If at 60 he cannot find the chocolate ice cream and is “spiraling out of control” is she expected to leave her partner’s home and climb into Eric bed with him to comfort him? Eric’s own mother would not have, and should not have, left her home and climbed into bed with him to help him get through the night. The premise of the story is, therefore, that modern human beings, or, at least, a lot of them, fail to grow up and take accountability of their lives.
Returning to the main theme of the present article, it is quite clear that the situation Sue describes is not the whole story, indeed, that it does not even make sense. Note first that after informing her bf Tom in a phone call that night that she will be sleeping overnight with Eric in the same bed but that “nothing weird, no touching,” will happen, she remarks that at first she told Eric she would take the couch but that Eric said that, since she is doing him a favor, she should sleep in the bed (with him). This makes no sense whatsoever. First, why, when she had offered to sleep on the couch, does she immediately bow to Eric’s idea is that since she is doing him a favor, she should not sleep on the uncomfortable couch but in his comfortable bed? Why does she let Eric overrule her own choice to sleep on the couch and tell her to sleep in the bed with him? Does she not have any independent judgment? For, there would be a very easy way for her to sleep over but them not to sleep in the same bed. If Eric really wants to “do her a favor,” why does he not sleep on the uncomfortable couch and give Sue the comfortable bed. Duh! The reason why Eric does not propose this entirely common sense idea is that he obviously wants her in the same bed with him. Eric’s suggestion is not a favor to Sue. It is a favor to himself and Sue, apparently devoid of 11th grade reasoning abilities does not think of that simple obvious solution.
The second main point is that when Sue tells her bf Tom that although she and Eric will sleep in the same bed but that no “weirdness” or “touching” will happen, she does not say, “and that’s what happened” but rather says, and I quote, “and I let myself believe it.” That last clause implies that what she told Tom, that no weirdness or toughing would happen, is false. Without intending to do so, Sue admits that something physical between She and Eric did happen in the bed. That means that the truth of the story is not merely about her innocently transgressing boundaries. It is about actual infidelity. That does not mean full-fledged sex but some level of “touching” and “weirdness”.
Note also what when she calls her bf that night to explain that although she will sleep in Eric’s bed, she tries to calm her bf by saying, and, again, I quote, “nothing is [present tense] happening.” Sue could have said, “nothing will happen,” but, oddly, says only that “nothing is happening.” But of course “nothing is happening” because she and Eric have not climbed together into bed together yet. Duh again!
Furthermore, Sue describes her reaction to her bf Tom’s reaction to her telling him that she will sleep overnight in the same bed as Eric. She explains that when Tom says, “Do what you want,” she understood immediately that this was not permission but rather “it felt like the beginning of the end.” However, if she really understood that it felt like the beginning of the end, why did she not immediately tell Eric that she had made a mistake and had to drive home to her bf Tom? That obvious answer is that at that moment, she prioritizes her friend Eric over her bf Tom. Even though she felt that this event would “end” her relationship with her bf she stays to sleep in the same bed as Eric.
The next main point is concerns her description of what happened the next morning when she woke and “immediately checked my phone,” surprised that there were no messages from her bf Tom. So she sends him a “Good morning” text and, when she gets no response, calls him, but the call “went straight to voice mail”. She first thought he was “busy” and then thought he might be “mad and needed time.” Naturally, since she now understood that her beloved bf, Tom, was mad, she immediately drove home to comfort him, just as she had “comforted” Eric the previous night. Actually, no! She then admits that “as the hours passed and the silence began to become heavy she drove home around noon”. Wait! She knew Tom was probably mad but she casually spent several more hours comforting her “best male friend” before she drove home to see her bf Tom. It is now entirely quite clear that she is more emotionally involved with Eric than she is with her own bf Tom.
Finally, after she arrives at Tom’s place the next morning and finds that he has moved out, and begins to understand that she has relationship-ending crossed boundaries, she makes a very peculiar formulation about what had actually happened between her and Eric in that bed the previous night. She states her realization that her bf Tom had decided not to beg for respect because he had seen a woman (her) “willing to cross boundaries even if nothing physical happened.” She does not say, “even though nothing physical happened.” Rather, she says “if” nothing physical happened, which introduces the possibility that something physical might have happened in that shared bed with Eric the previous night. The use of the word “if” in that sentence might make sense if she were there referring to that general kind of situation, when women in excusive relationships sleep in male beds. However, it is very clear from the video that she is not making a general point about such situations but is referring to her own previous night in the bed with Eric. Sue, whether consciously or not, is intimating that the night in the bed with Eric is not as innocent as she would like to admit.
That is, there are multiple points in Sue’s story in which she tacitly admits that he relationship with Eric and that night in the same bed with him are not so innocent as she would like is to believe.
Then she says, “and I let myself believe it,” instead of “and that is what happened”, she admits that some kind of physical contact or “weirdness” did occur in the bed with Eric that night. When she lets Eric decide the sleeping arrangements, rather than sticking to her own choice to sleep on the couch, she is admitting Eric’s power inappropriately to control her actions. When she fails to act on her realization that her bf’s remark that night, “Do what you want,” signaled the end of something, not permission to sleep in the same bed with Eric, she unintentionally shows that she prioritizes her relationship with the man-baby over her relationship with her actual bf. When, the next morning, she realized that Tom is not responding to her and is probably mad, instead of acting swiftly to drive to her bf’s place to repair the relationship, she takes several hours to leave Eric’s apartment and drive to her bf Tom’s place, she again shows how much more she prioritizes her emotional attachment to Eric over her bf Tom. This is what psychologists call “an emotional affair” and her affair with Eric is probably physical to some degree as well.
One might think one is overanalyzing the dialogue in this video. However the points made here reflect standard psychological points about the true meaning of people’s language. Everyone is, presumably, aware of the idea of “Freudian slips,” the way seemingly trivial and unintentional errors in speech betray the real truth behind the innocent language. For example, when A asks his friends wife at a common dinner if she could pass the “bed and butter”, rather than the “bread and butter”, he is unintentionally indicating that he wants to sleep with her. In these Freudian slips the person’s unconscious desires accidentally slip out in what seems like innocent mistakes but is actually highly revelatory about that persons true desires. Similarly, when Sue says, “even if nothing physical happened,” instead of “even though nothing physical happened”, thereby introducing the possibility that something physical had happened with Eric, she is unintentionally admitting that something physical might have happened.
Sue’s video is littered with multiple verbal hints that her description of her night in the bed with her best male friend is not as innocent as she would have us believe. The real reason she lost her bf Tom is not merely that she innocently crossed a boundary that she should not have crossed. That’s how she wants to think about why she lost her bf. The real thinly veiled message of the video is that, at minimum, Sue is having an emotional affair with Eric that appears to have sometimes crossed into a physical relationship. Sue would be a good candidate for a session on Freud’s couch.
Agree/Disagree with the author(s)? Let them know in the comments below and be heard by 10’s of thousands of CDN readers each day!
