280 upvotes, 9 direct replies (showing 9)
View submission: Promote ideas, protect people
[deleted]
Comment by CttCJim at 14/05/2015 at 17:50 UTC
33 upvotes, 4 direct replies
except that /r/fatpeoplehate has strict anti-brigading rules. It's completely contained; the ONLY way to be offended by the existence of /r/fatpeoplehate is to go there.
but that's none of my business...
and before anyone says it, yes, posters from FPH also post elsewhere telling fat people that they should change... but if you delete FPH as a sub they'll still post the same things, because they are discussing their belief vis a vis diet and/or exercise, not speaking for or because of the group. You cannot censor people for saying things like "if you counted calories you could lose that extra weight and then your tinder dates wouldn't accuse you of lying" (for example). It's an opinion (IMO a fact-based one) and a contribution on-topic to discussion. FPH posters (as a rule; there's assholes in any group of people) do not go to every comment a fat person makes and downvote and reply to them all with "UR FAT". They IN CONTEXT state bluntly that they believe fat people should not be fat, and the reasons why the existence of fat people angers them. then they go back to FPH and rant about it and maybe post the conversation with the names blanked out.
I'd even go so far as to say that /r/fatpeoplehate is not really a hate sub, any more so than /r/justiceporn is a porn sub.
Comment by MillenniumFalc0n at 14/05/2015 at 16:59 UTC
105 upvotes, 4 direct replies
I was about to write up something about this. The problem with this rule's wording is that you can't maintain a "safe platform" for both /r/judaism and /r/gasthekikes.
Comment by pastofor at 14/05/2015 at 17:25 UTC
13 upvotes, 3 direct replies
Or are those the dangerous ideas that need to be censored?
Their post specifically says you can attack ideas (just not harrass people).
That's another problem with reddit... the majority through downvotes can simply suppress minority opinions.
Comment by Huwbacca at 14/05/2015 at 18:28 UTC
2 upvotes, 2 direct replies
I'm left simply agog that this is a particularly complex matter for some people.
What does harassment mean? They define it... they define it using the very same quote you post.
Your examples are at best, tangentially related. Someone ridiculing an idea, or having an idea that someone else thinks is dangerous doesn't fit under "systematic and continued actions etc etc.." does it?
Does you getting called a name count? No, because it's not sustained and systematic.
Put in danger of feeling insulted? What does this have to do with anything? Are you intentionally taking the bit about safety and being a bit daft with it? Safety, as it when people release details about where someone lives or works... perhaps when they threaten them and make damned convincing allusions to know where they live.
The rules are pretty clear, there is a limit of flexibility because if you make them set in stone then people kick up a storm that they *technically* didn't harass someone ( e.g."Oh, but the rules only protect gender, sexuality and race etc... so I'm allowed to threaten him for his political views.. it's in the rules!!").
If the rules were set in stone then everyone would also be pissed off that there is no room to interpret every case individually so it's no win really.
Comment by Zagden at 15/05/2015 at 05:35 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
No, you won't be able to systematically and continuously follow a conspiracy theorist around reddit and torment them. I didn't find that very hard to follow.
GamerGateGhazi will be fine except for the people, again, systematically and continuously following and harassing specific people around reddit until they feel too threatened to continue using the site.
Comment by verdatum at 14/05/2015 at 17:38 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I'm confused. The way I'm reading it, this comment (and many others I've read like it) seem to be made without appreciation of the fact that it is possible to express disagreements with a thought or idea without attacking or threatening individual users as people.
Again, as I'm reading things, by the very writing you quote, all you have to do is not threaten people's safety, and you're fine. Any complaints made against you will be dismissed. I don't understand what the big deal is here.
Comment by Katastic_Voyage at 15/05/2015 at 04:44 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
By this rule, it sounds to me that all the GamerGate/GamerGhazi infighting is banned: Those groups are both systematically harassing and demeaning each other.
Actually, that's a smear campeign. Go to the subreddit /r/KotakuInAction and read the sidebar rules. Read the comments. Do any of them even remotely suggest vote brigading, harassing, or sending death threats?
The answer is actually no. You can't generalize about a whole subreddit without ever even going there.
Comment by [deleted] at 15/05/2015 at 00:29 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
In the conspiracy theorist example, everyone can be banned for hurt feelings. Same with any discussion if both parties report each other.
Comment by [deleted] at 14/05/2015 at 17:10 UTC
-10 upvotes, 3 direct replies
Tbh I dont think anyone cares about GamerGate. I was apparently around when it all started, and I still dont get what its about. Keep it in 4chan I say.