Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Rule nr 1. It's just being used to enforce a political agenda. You can bitch about Christians or men all you want for instance, but say something negative about transgenders and you risk your account
A lot of people are vulnerable to online hate, that has nothing to do with what your group identity is. There are also plenty of people willing to marginalise these people by excluding them, or talking them down for being part of a group.
There are two distinct problems here, bullying, and political persecution.
Christians and men can be bullied. Sure. They will never suffer systemic discrimination, they will never be marginalised, because they hold all the institutional power.
You can hurt their feelings, but that's not persecution.
Maybe you should read what the actual rule is:
>Remember the human. Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of [harassment, bullying](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043071072), and threats of [violence](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/account-and-community-restrictions/do-not-post-violent-content). Communities and users that incite violence or that promote hate based on [identity or vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/account-and-community-restrictions/promoting-hate-based-identity-or) will be banned.
And it's not about political persecution, systemic discrimination or institutional power.
"Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of [harassment, bullying](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043071072), and threats of [violence](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/account-and-community-restrictions/do-not-post-violent-content)" Yet when men are bullied, nothing happens, but say something negative or neutral about transgenders, and you risk your account.
I don't know why you're pulling all this "institutional power" crap in the conversation but it sounds a lot like you're justifying christians and men being bullied
>Yet when men are bullied, nothing happens, but say something negative or neutral about transgenders, and you risk your account.
Yes and I am explaining that that is because of persecution and marginalisation.
Saying "men suck" is not persecution and marginalisation.
Bullying a user who is a man or a Christian is not allowed, and that is appropriate. But you cannot create persecution and marginalisation of these groups.
Damn, you're like the living embodiment of how reddit enforces their rule nr 1.
Thank you for being the example of why it's so shit.
They should update the last sentence of that rule to be "Communities and users that incite violence or that promote hate based on [identity or vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/account-and-community-restrictions/promoting-hate-based-identity-or) will be banned, ***except when hating that identity aligns with our political motivation, because marginalisation, institutional power, bla bla bla...***"
Yes because Reddit's opinion is the same as mine.
Bullying and harassment, and marginalisation and persecution are different issues.
Until you understand the difference you will continue to be angry and confused.
That's not what I said.
If a christian and a transgender are equally harassed, do you really think there's going to be a difference in how terrible they feel?
Also the level of harassment really depends what corner of the internet you're in. Trans harassment is considered worse and so these harassers are put into the spotlight more, but you'd be surprised how much anti-christian sentiment there is if you do a little digging. It's just generally accepted to be anti-christian.
Because that's totally representative of the +90% western users of Reddit.
And in many places in the "Islamic World" christians are not persecuted at all. But who am I to question what Fox News told you?
These are actually pretty fantastic rules to be the basis of the platform. Like, don't be an asshole, stay on topic, don't stalk people, and don't be a pedophile sounds pretty good to me.
Not about liking tasty boots. Social media is a cancer con society, and the way to avoid that is to establish rules to promote less harmful content that increases the quality of discourse for everyone on the site.
If people really, really wanted to bash marginalised groups, they can go to 4chan and its clones. But they don't really, they stay on Reddit. Why? Because they prefer the environment created by Reddit's rules.
And? Plenty of other sites you can go to if you want your version of "free speech". But you stay here because you know those places are cesspools of the worst people online.
No those other sites are blocked too lol. I tried looking for a good, unblocked one until my boss called me up saying that in the 10 years that the company exists, no one had as much browsing traffic blocked as me. So I stopped looking. Also I gotta say, I really like getting a push notification when someone replies to me, I really miss that on 4chan.
This "environment" is the sole reason why I'm subscribed to places like r/RedditAlternatives. It's the biggest reason why I'd want to leave reddit. I'm sure it's great when you're aligned with reddit's political views, but if you're not you have to be really careful with what you say on this platform. Freedom of expression is not a thing here. Echochambers are.
I'm fine with the rules, but not fine with how they are enforced. The automated systems are junk and noteven reviewed by a human (read, tons of false positives), I once got dinged with a ban for "harassment" over sending somebody who literally talked about future self-harm a Reddit cares message.
That said, while I do not like transphobia (and have no problem with removing it from my subreddit and dishing out bans for it), I do worry it goes a bit too far to go to the extent of banning accounts when it's not something like say, targetted misgendering of people, but purely somebody expressing a really bad view. I cannot condone the fact that admins will site-wide ban somebody for that, but not for supporting US military recruitment, even though that's literal terrorist recruitment (i.e. recruitment into a group that uses the threat of politically motivated violence against people who disagree with US foreign policy). Also don't like that admins will platform things like misogynistic fetishes (e.g. comparing women to literal objects), and slap users with "report abuse" when they report it as against site-wide rules, hate doesn't stop becoming hate just cause somebody gets turned on by it, and those subreddits should be cracked down on.
I say all this as somebody that doesn't believe in any age restrictions on transitioning, and that would like to legally consider blocking them child abuse, and that would be interested in attending a trans-rights protest in light of the Cass review (which I consider bigotry pretending to be science, despite discarding 98% of the peer-reviewed studies considered, yet not viewing an anti-trans Youtube channel as a valid source).
Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Who picked rule 4?
They all seem like basic common-sense rules to me.
Rule nr 1. It's just being used to enforce a political agenda. You can bitch about Christians or men all you want for instance, but say something negative about transgenders and you risk your account
A political agenda, or corporate profits? Christians and men are not vulnerable, marginalised communities. That's the difference.
A lot of people are vulnerable to online hate, that has nothing to do with what your group identity is. There are also plenty of people willing to marginalise these people by excluding them, or talking them down for being part of a group.
There are two distinct problems here, bullying, and political persecution. Christians and men can be bullied. Sure. They will never suffer systemic discrimination, they will never be marginalised, because they hold all the institutional power. You can hurt their feelings, but that's not persecution.
Maybe you should read what the actual rule is: >Remember the human. Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of [harassment, bullying](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043071072), and threats of [violence](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/account-and-community-restrictions/do-not-post-violent-content). Communities and users that incite violence or that promote hate based on [identity or vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/account-and-community-restrictions/promoting-hate-based-identity-or) will be banned.
And?
And it's not about political persecution, systemic discrimination or institutional power. "Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of [harassment, bullying](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043071072), and threats of [violence](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/account-and-community-restrictions/do-not-post-violent-content)" Yet when men are bullied, nothing happens, but say something negative or neutral about transgenders, and you risk your account. I don't know why you're pulling all this "institutional power" crap in the conversation but it sounds a lot like you're justifying christians and men being bullied
>Yet when men are bullied, nothing happens, but say something negative or neutral about transgenders, and you risk your account. Yes and I am explaining that that is because of persecution and marginalisation. Saying "men suck" is not persecution and marginalisation. Bullying a user who is a man or a Christian is not allowed, and that is appropriate. But you cannot create persecution and marginalisation of these groups.
Damn, you're like the living embodiment of how reddit enforces their rule nr 1. Thank you for being the example of why it's so shit. They should update the last sentence of that rule to be "Communities and users that incite violence or that promote hate based on [identity or vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/account-and-community-restrictions/promoting-hate-based-identity-or) will be banned, ***except when hating that identity aligns with our political motivation, because marginalisation, institutional power, bla bla bla...***"
Yes because Reddit's opinion is the same as mine. Bullying and harassment, and marginalisation and persecution are different issues. Until you understand the difference you will continue to be angry and confused.
Nothing to do with what your group identity is? Do you know how much worse transgender harassment is on the internet?
That's not what I said. If a christian and a transgender are equally harassed, do you really think there's going to be a difference in how terrible they feel? Also the level of harassment really depends what corner of the internet you're in. Trans harassment is considered worse and so these harassers are put into the spotlight more, but you'd be surprised how much anti-christian sentiment there is if you do a little digging. It's just generally accepted to be anti-christian.
[удалено]
Because that's totally representative of the +90% western users of Reddit. And in many places in the "Islamic World" christians are not persecuted at all. But who am I to question what Fox News told you?
[удалено]
Yet you're just as terrified of Muslims as they are. Embarrassing.
[удалено]
lmao which caliphate you hysterical coward 😂😂😂
[удалено]
So disparate people that have nothing to do with each other are a “caliphate” now? You understand what a coward you sound like, right?
> A political agenda, or corporate profits? Yes
These are actually pretty fantastic rules to be the basis of the platform. Like, don't be an asshole, stay on topic, don't stalk people, and don't be a pedophile sounds pretty good to me.
Not about liking tasty boots. Social media is a cancer con society, and the way to avoid that is to establish rules to promote less harmful content that increases the quality of discourse for everyone on the site. If people really, really wanted to bash marginalised groups, they can go to 4chan and its clones. But they don't really, they stay on Reddit. Why? Because they prefer the environment created by Reddit's rules.
>Why? Because they prefer the environment created by Reddit's rules. No it's because my office's firewall blocks 4chan
And? Plenty of other sites you can go to if you want your version of "free speech". But you stay here because you know those places are cesspools of the worst people online.
No those other sites are blocked too lol. I tried looking for a good, unblocked one until my boss called me up saying that in the 10 years that the company exists, no one had as much browsing traffic blocked as me. So I stopped looking. Also I gotta say, I really like getting a push notification when someone replies to me, I really miss that on 4chan. This "environment" is the sole reason why I'm subscribed to places like r/RedditAlternatives. It's the biggest reason why I'd want to leave reddit. I'm sure it's great when you're aligned with reddit's political views, but if you're not you have to be really careful with what you say on this platform. Freedom of expression is not a thing here. Echochambers are.
Misclicked Rule 2 -1, Rule 1 +1
I'm fine with the rules, but not fine with how they are enforced. The automated systems are junk and noteven reviewed by a human (read, tons of false positives), I once got dinged with a ban for "harassment" over sending somebody who literally talked about future self-harm a Reddit cares message. That said, while I do not like transphobia (and have no problem with removing it from my subreddit and dishing out bans for it), I do worry it goes a bit too far to go to the extent of banning accounts when it's not something like say, targetted misgendering of people, but purely somebody expressing a really bad view. I cannot condone the fact that admins will site-wide ban somebody for that, but not for supporting US military recruitment, even though that's literal terrorist recruitment (i.e. recruitment into a group that uses the threat of politically motivated violence against people who disagree with US foreign policy). Also don't like that admins will platform things like misogynistic fetishes (e.g. comparing women to literal objects), and slap users with "report abuse" when they report it as against site-wide rules, hate doesn't stop becoming hate just cause somebody gets turned on by it, and those subreddits should be cracked down on. I say all this as somebody that doesn't believe in any age restrictions on transitioning, and that would like to legally consider blocking them child abuse, and that would be interested in attending a trans-rights protest in light of the Cass review (which I consider bigotry pretending to be science, despite discarding 98% of the peer-reviewed studies considered, yet not viewing an anti-trans Youtube channel as a valid source).