This comment was in a post about a guy who openly spilled secrets then got fired.
https://www.reddit.com/r/golf/comments/1dynric/rip_to_the_augusta_ama_guy_yesterday_who_was_not/
This comment was in a post about a guy who openly spilled secrets then got fired.
https://www.reddit.com/r/golf/comments/1dynric/rip_to_the_augusta_ama_guy_yesterday_who_was_not/
I think that should be decided by the readers of the comment not by reddit. Unless I actually incite hate or violence. Or maybe if I had a history of leaving comments like that. But it was the first time I talked about it. Or if my account was new or a bot. I don’t like to assume the worst about people just because they criticise something adjacent to a controversial topic. That’s how problems get swept under the rug and never solved.
Thank you for being reasonable and understanding how life isn’t black and white.
gets banned for using black and white
Except if you leave it solely to the readers of the comment, the communications platform is still flooded by racists and bigots of all stripes. Sure, a lot of their comments are downvoted, but by giving them a platform you’re giving them a way to degrade the quality of the platform they’re on, drive away reasonable users and eventually take over and shit up the place unrestricted. Just like the nazi bar story.
Downvotes are nowhere near as effective as moderation when it comes to keeping hate off of a platform. Sorry if you posted something in good faith and moderation censored you, but that doesn’t make moderation as a concept wrong.
(Also, I kind of agree with you that there should be more signals available to moderators than just “does this comment mention race negatively”. However, I’m not sure you want reddit scoring what kind of person you are and attaching that score to every moderation action.)
I don’t think Moderation as a concept is wrong. I also filed an appeal, so i’ll see what they say after taking a closer look. But I sense a huge problem of people not being able to understand any nuances in this topic. So they just leave the whole thing for the extreme right as their talking point.
Yes and FURTHERMORE, POE’S LAW EXISTS
and it’s NOT actually “just” about parody - it’s all too often impossible to tell honest anecdote apart from ideological rhetoric.
How would you solve problems pertaining to immigration when you can’t talk about experiences. There is actually a large problem of parallel societies in germany that has been rampant for decades because no one wants to talk about it. I mean like people doing what I talked about in my comments or not learning the countrys language in decades and having no contact to native germans. I my comment I was actually talking about people who were born here and their familys lived here for generations. In western europe in general it’s driving people to the extreme right, because no one dares talk about it in a normal and legitimate way. Censorship only makes these problems worse. There needs to be a way to talk about this topic with some nuance, not just blatant hate rhetoric.
Poe’s law doesn’t mean ban anything that’s edging a bit close to what you think it is. It’s like arresting people for a crime they didn’t commit but because they act suspiciously according to the eye of the authority.
The nazi bar story is retarded. To buy into it is to forfeit all your advantages against the obnoxious minority, such as being vastly greater in number, and being able to exercise critical thinking abilities. The nazi doesn’t drive anyone away, people make the choice to do so themselves, when in fact they should challenge and confront at every opportunity. All the idea does is empower bad actors and agents provocateur and deny the agency of individuals. To borrow from Nicholas Taleb: it’s a very fragile concept.