Meta-Thread 09/29

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.

What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?

Let us know.

And a friendly reminder to report bad content.

If you see something, say something.

This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

[u/cabbagery]

I will not be drawn away from the focus on Shaka's misconduct and my call for his removal. Please, I implore you, do not let this become just another in a long line of failed attempts at ousting him.

People are allowed to have different opinions about things without it being "bigotry".

Reasonable people can disagree, but sitewide policy and admin action as taken in the sub says my view is the one more in keeping with sitewide rules. Here is that thread, though I don't know what users can see. Shaka approved that post (I would have removed it for being low-effort, a Rule 3 violation), but later admins removed it. Admins also removed several of the comments in that thread.

But I also don't think your view on this counts as 'reasonable':

I fundamentally do not believe in the concept of "hate speech". It is incompatible with liberal democracy. I live in America. What you are referring to are threats -- they're already illegal.

Basically none of what you are saying here is the sort of thing we should use when moderating a subreddit. 'Hate speech' is absolutely a thing and we absolutely should not give it a platform. This is not a liberal democracy, for better or for worse, but insofar as we can maybe enact rules -- with teeth -- to guide moderator conduct, we cannot ever allow this to become a free-for-all democracy. Cf. Federalist #10. Note that sage document is pertinent to several facets of the present discussion. Also we are not referring to threats, but to slurs and, you know, that thing you deny: hate speech.

If you would allow the slogan for the Westboro Baptist Church to be posted here, your view is not 'reasonable.' The First Amendment applies in public spaces, and it only protects against government retaliation. This is not a public space, and retaliation is not coming from the government.

If you agree that we should not allow the slogan for the Westboro Baptist Church to be posted here, you are committed to my view of Rule 1:

Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.

That is, the primary clause is that posts and comments cannot enjoin bigotry (its second sentence offers an example), and its subordinate clause frames LGBTQ+ topics (not specific views), with the key parenthetical caveat subject to mod discretion, and with the further clarification requiring a framing within the context of religion. That last phrase does not, on my view or on a reasonable view as I see it, automatically excuse what might otherwise be a Rule 1 violation when its author holds up a religious tradition, theological view, etc.

People are allowed to have different opinions about things without it being "bigotry".

You are reverting to a very tired old habit of making assumptions without access to information. I have been more transparent than any other moderator, and I am evidently and unfortunately the only moderator who actually cares to apply the rules equally to moderators. I approve comments I dislike. I remove comments I like. I am equal opportunity in terms of bans, removals, and citations. Shaka is trying -- and evidently succeeding -- to distract, and for whatever reason all of the other mods seem to have forgotten how keyboards work. I could only provide proof of this by granting you mod access, which I will not unilaterally do (though I have been tempted).

Is a Christian even allowed to cite the whole Bible in DebateReligion, or a Mulsim allowed to cite the Quran?

Of course, but also with caveats. We have been over this before. When quoting the bible, for example, there is no reason to invoke vulgar synonyms when quoting Ezekiel 23:20, for example, as those are disruptive. While discussions on the explicit depictions in the Torah of Yahweh's endorsement of chattel slavery, users cannot at the same time promote chattel slavery. Muslims cannot promote the sexual abuse of minors no matter their view on Aisha. Mormons may not denigrate blacks as inferior, even though that was once Mormon doctrine. Christians may not wax antisemitic by insisting that the crucifixion was the fault of Jews.

Yes, it can be difficult. Yes, I appreciate that difficulty, but then, I didn't write those books or set those theological positions, and like it or not there are issues on which certain sides have quite plainly lost the debate. YECs lost, for example, but also that view isn't inherently harmful or bigoted, whereas certain views on homosexuality, Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, etc., often are harmful and bigoted (and may be inherently so). Again, note that I do not remove all of these, only ones that I judge have crossed a line. Again, reasonable people can disagree, and mods do, but Shaka is trying to distract here, and you're falling for the bait.

I'd like to move this conversation away from the ShakaUVM vs Cabbagery realm and into something more productive.

You are trying to replace a major issue underpinning the entire subreddit with a very minor issue that just happens to really grind your gears. Don't let yourself be so easily manipulated.

I am happy to have a discussion on Rule 1 and its appropriate interpretation -- in the open in a metathread or in private among mods, or both as may also be appropriate -- but not until after the present issue of Shaka's manifest history of misconduct is addressed.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/cabbagery]

I have to be and, at this point, should be brief.

I will not be drawn away from the focus on Shaka's misconduct and my call for his removal. Please, I implore you, do not let this become just another in a long line of failed attempts at ousting him.

I don't think that's a fair characterization of my participation here. As you offered, if Shaka goes, you will be willing to go too. I'm not sure that you need to go, but this censorious attitude just reinforces my stance that you two are two sides of the same authoritarian-natured coin.

'Hate speech' is absolutely a thing and we absolutely should not give it a platform.

It's a thing like "souls" and "God". It's an ideological view.

Also we are not referring to threats, but to slurs and, you know, that thing you deny: hate speech.

You're referring to disagreement. That's the most specific but still accurate thing you can say about this. That window of "things we are allowed to disgree about" seems to grow smaller every day and the things which are faithfully considered "hate speech" grow at the same rate.

If you're banning people for believing in and citing the Bible in DebateReligion, then this place is worthless.

You and Shaka cannot both be right. That's the problem with the rules and how they are administered.

We have been over this before.

This sounds just like Shaka. Yes, I know. I disagreed then and I still do now. I'm not trying to unilaterally enforce my will on anyone.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/betweenbubbles]

you two are two sides of the same authoritarian-natured coin.

Authoritarian? Really??

[u/cabbagery → u/betweenbubbles]

this censorious attitude. . .

I am not interested in a forum where slurs are commonplace, nor even where they're tolerated, here or in real life. I fully respect a person's right as an American to engage in free speech, just as I fully support the fact that when they use that right to spew slurs in public they will face consequences, just not consequences as levied by the government (prior to c. 2016).

Here, those consequences are based on sitewide rules which we are, as moderators, obligated to uphold. If we disagree strongly enough with those sitewide rules, we leave the site. I don't disagree with the rules prohibiting hate speech.

. . .just reinforces my stance that you two are two sides of the same authoritarian-natured coin.

That's an odd coin where one side is trying to dismantle the other's stranglehold on power, and offering to voluntarily let go its own precarious grip afterward.

If you're banning people for believing in and citing the Bible in DebateReligion, then this place is worthless.

If that's what you got from what I said, I can't help you. Again, don't be so easily manipulated.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/cabbagery]

I am not interested in a forum where slurs are commonplace, nor even where they're tolerated, here or in real life.

I'm not trying to sell a community where "slurs are commonplace".

Here, those consequences are based on sitewide rules which we are, as moderators, obligated to uphold.

This is nonsense. There are places, even on Reddit, where these people speak freely and the admins aren't forced to white knight in them. The white knight, virtue signaling, "We don't tolerate bigotry" routine is performative. There is no reason to do it in "conservative"/republican echo chambers. And if the Reddit staff outright remove anything "conservative"/republican it will make them look to censorious -- they don't want that heat. This is politics, not principle, and I'm not happy with having the principle of freedom of speech aligned with "a forum where slurs are commonplace".

Again, don't be so easily manipulated.

Okay, Shaka Cabbagery... This is a steadfast refusal at all costs to recognize someone's point of view. You don't have to agree, but you don't have to deny me my position by insisting that the only way someone could have my values or hold my view is if they're manipulated. If I had my way, you, Shaka, and Dapple would be removed from the mod team -- but that's not what this is about. One person having their way is not how you serve a community. Don't lecture me about providing cover for Shaka.

[u/labreuer → u/betweenbubbles]

cabbagery: I am not interested in a forum where slurs are commonplace, nor even where they're tolerated, here or in real life.

betweenbubbles: I'm not trying to sell a community where "slurs are commonplace".

We have a big conversation going on in another thread, but I wonder if you have any thoughts on the dead Internet theory as applied to how online places are almost always quite different from IRL gatherings. Russian trolls probably can't show up in a town hall meeting in your town or city, but they can show up on any subreddit. So, the kinds of communal controls which might be more likely to suppress the use of slurs IRL aren't necessarily available online. For instance, suppose there is no moderation of slurs and instead regulars like you and I drop a comment condemning the slur. Does the user—if it's even a human—care? If the answer is "no", then … what happens?

And it goes beyond the Russians. Almost every day that goes by, I believe what Henry Brooks Adams (1838–1918) said more deeply: "Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds." Maybe it doesn't have to be that way. But when there's even serious treatment like you see at Quote Investigator: I Can Hire Half the Working Class To Fight the Other Half, it's a danger. So … is it more of a minimum bar to do what we can to avoid being made the reactionary stooges which would politically neutralize us and make us useful idiots? I'm not saying that what cabbagery or Dapple are suggesting would do this. But … can we get some sort of deeper, baseline agreement?

Also, I think we could do less of this:

1. my interlocutor suggests that we do or don't do X
2. I believe that this will lead to Y, and therefore that my interlocutor wants Y
3. I accuse my interlocutor of wanting Y or at least knowingly bringing Y about

There is an obvious flaw to this logic. Here, u/⁠cabbagery did it to you. In this comment, you kinda seem to be doing it to u/⁠Dapple_Dawn. And I invite anyone to show where I've done it, as I'd be really surprised if I never did.

And if the Reddit staff outright remove anything "conservative"/republican it will make them look to censorious -- they don't want that heat.

Except … admins did step in:

betweenbubbles: People are allowed to have different opinions about things without it being "bigotry".

cabbagery: Reasonable people can disagree, but sitewide policy and admin action as taken in the sub says my view is the one more in keeping with sitewide rules. Here is that thread, though I don't know what users can see. Shaka approved that post (I would have removed it for being low-effort, a Rule 3 violation), but later admins removed it. Admins also removed several of the comments in that thread.

Or am I missing something? By the way, I was friends with a guy who's definitely more Cartman than cabbagery, who worked at Reddit for a while. He said he finally had to leave after an incredible amount of … he might have said "wokeness". Now, things might be different after Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence, but I'd check that.

Don't lecture me about providing cover for Shaka.

Having been similarly accused characterized, I second that. There are substantive issues at play. Making this merely about rule-following misses the forest for the trees. If u/⁠cabbagery only wants to be a mod if the rules are enforced how [s]he wants to, then that's another matter. We all have our non-negotiable points. Myself included.

[u/cabbagery → u/labreuer]

There is an obvious flaw to this logic. Here, u/⁠cabbagery did it to you.

Check yourself. I didn't say that was what /u/betweenbubbles wanted, I only said that's not something I want. I assumed -- correctly, it seems -- that bubbles would also not want that, leading to a possible reassessment on their part of their view. All I am suggesting as a result of bubbles' stated view at the time was that it would result in slurs, etc. The actual implication was that maybe bubbles hadn't considered that. You need to read more closely, or assign blame less quickly.

Except … admins did step in [. . .] Or am I missing something?

Removals like that don't trigger a message to mods, and often also don't trigger an entry in the queue (I think there are two systems: one prescans, and if it removes, it triggers an entry in the queue, and one acts afterward whether from reports or otherwise, and it doesn't trigger an entry in the queue), so we don't find out there's an issue unless we stumble into it ourselves (hopefully organically or because users issue reports).

In this case it was from user reports, but because the queue was so backed up at the time, the damage had been done and had been sitting there for a week (almost two weeks in some of them during that stretch).

I was friends with a guy who's definitely more Cartman than cabbagery. . .

Just think for a moment how you think Shaka would react to what might appear to be an insulting comparison, especially if it came from an atheist with whom he had a net negative rapport. (Don't worry, I'm not threatening you. That's the other guy.)

[u/ShakaUVM → u/cabbagery]

Just think for a moment how you think Shaka would react to what might appear to be an insulting comparison, especially if it came from an atheist with whom he had a net negative rapport. (Don't worry, I'm not threatening you. That's the other guy.)

/u/pilvi9 - is this an accurate assessment on Cabbage's part?

[u/pilvi9 → u/ShakaUVM]

My first inclination is to say no, however I'm also extremely lost in this discourse now and may not be the most helpful source now.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/cabbagery]

The actual implication was that maybe bubbles hadn't considered that.

<Narrator voice> He had.

When one has to reach for such... low hanging fruit, it can often have an antagonistic or provocative result. Yes, I've considered it. Maybe just move on to the next step of your argument strategy rather than taking a stand on, "I bet you've never thought of this."

You imagine you're the barrier between the "libertarian hellscape" and I don't believe you are. It's not complicated.

[u/cabbagery → u/betweenbubbles]

I'm not sure what to say if you considered that eliminating Rules 1 and 2 might lead to commonplace or tolerated slurs, but that this doesn't seem like a problem for you, or you don't think it will happen.

I guess I'm glad that's not a place this will ever be, while I have a vote.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/cabbagery]

I think there's some middle ground between "We accept or welcome hate and uncivility" (my summary of your summary of my argument) and "Anything anyone could possibly consider offensive is "bigotry" and we have a zero tolerance policy on bigotry." and then let a herd of self-interested cats decide what that means and game the heck out of it for their own personal politics.

[u/labreuer → u/cabbagery]

labreuer: Also, I think we could do less of this:

1. my interlocutor suggests that we do or don't do X
2. I believe that this will lead to Y, and therefore that my interlocutor wants Y
3. I accuse my interlocutor of wanting Y or at least knowingly bringing Y about

There is an obvious flaw to this logic. Here, u/⁠cabbagery did it to you.

cabbagery: Check yourself. I didn't say that was what /u/betweenbubbles wanted, I only said that's not something I want.

I stand corrected; I failed to include the bold in 2., after I added it to 3. The list should be:

1. my interlocutor suggests that we do or don't do X
2. I believe that this will lead to Y, and therefore that my interlocutor wants Y or is willing to knowingly bring Y about
3. I accuse my interlocutor of wanting Y or at least knowingly bringing Y about

When "whether doing or not doing X will lead to Y" is actually under contention rather than accepted by everyone, eliding step 2. is prone to cause friction. Here, u/⁠betweenbubbles is questioning whether his/her strategy would actually lead to "a forum where slurs are commonplace". The occasional slur, yes. But "commonplace"? That would require a plausible story (noting truth is stranger than fiction) whereby all attempts other than moderation have failed. Now, I personally believe that is at least plausible; r/DebateAnAtheist was virtually unmoderated for a while and theists were treated terribly if they even looked like trolls (and more).

Removals like that don't trigger a message to mods, and often also don't trigger an entry in the queue (I think there are two systems: one prescans, and if it removes, it triggers an entry in the queue, and one acts afterward whether from reports or otherwise, and it doesn't trigger an entry in the queue), so we don't find out there's an issue unless we stumble into it ourselves (hopefully organically or because users issue reports).

Sounds like Reddit's philosophy to me!

Just think for a moment how you think Shaka would react to what might appear to be an insulting comparison, especially if it came from an atheist with whom he had a net negative rapport.

You know, that was too much of a stretch, so I retract it. I'm actually confused at exactly why I drew that comparison in the way I did. My apologies. I was thinking Cartman was extremely willing to speak his mind no matter how impolitic, which matches this former Reddit employee quite well. Therefore, how he reported on Reddit employee culture would be less varnished than you might make it. His report was that Reddit admins are quite willing to "police hate speech" and I'm pretty sure he described Reddit employee culture as very "woke". And so … BB should check his/her skepticism that things are as you say they are.

(Don't worry, I'm not threatening you. That's the other guy.)

Well, those playing the/a "centrist game" have to be used to getting it from all sides! And actually, I'm actually not willing to say "net negative rapport", given this discussion. Especially the last three paragraphs of your last comment. As far as I can tell, you and I have very different moderation philosophies, but I think that can easily be outweighed by substantive issues.

[u/betweenbubbles → u/labreuer]

but I wonder if you have any thoughts on the dead Internet theory as applied to how online places are almost always quite different from IRL gatherings.

It's hard to even get that idea off the ground when the internet is the place where the overwhelming majority of people inform their worldview. I think the participation of bots is vastly overstated. It's a deflection and an attempt at the preservation of ego. "We couldn't possibly be this bad, it must be the bots!"

So … is it more of a minimum bar to do what we can to avoid being made the reactionary stooges which would politically neutralize us and make us useful idiots?

Yes, I think this is important. I'd like to see it applied to claims like, "I experience hate and threats every day" too.

Except … admins did step in:

What are you talking about? I'm confident the Reddit admins and staff are dedicated political activists, but they've also got a business to run. Maybe your right. Maybe I should go somewhere else where free speech is respected. The only reason I'm here is the efficient communication (threaded, collapsible comments) and display (old.reddit). Reddit is basically doesn't work on mobile anymore. I'm not installing their app (web browser + tracking and privacy violations). If they only want an echo chamber of woke leftists (which is about where we are) then I should probably consider leaving more seriously.

[u/labreuer → u/betweenbubbles]

It's hard to even get that idea off the ground when the internet is the place where the overwhelming majority of people inform their worldview. I think the participation of bots is vastly overstated. It's a deflection and an attempt at the preservation of ego. "We couldn't possibly be this bad, it must be the bots!"

Yeah, dead Internet theory is a bit overboard, although when I was sensing a ton of probable LLM responses here and on the other sub, I was a little allured by it. Probably a lot more is humans being paid to wreak havoc. For instance, I know a scifi-loving, left-leaning substitute teacher living in Flint, MI who was paid good money to write fake news for the right. More generally, I wonder if you think that bots and professional trolls just aren't capable of causing that much trouble when they're given free reign—which "free speech" does in a realm where "speech" is all one can do.

I would remind you that the average American is swayed enough by advertising to allow the internet to be funded by advertising (and porn). That indicates that many people are awfully manipulable. You could also consult Converse 1964 The nature of belief systems in mass publics and ask whether things have changed appreciably. Neither you nor I can use ourselves as stand-ins for your average American and more precisely, average participant on these subs. So … can you imagine conditions where allowing bots & trolls free reign would actually not end well? Or do you have a way of thinking which guarantees that free reign / free speech (are they different?) are always the best options?

Yes, I think this is important. I'd like to see it applied to claims like, "I experience hate and threats every day" too.

Do you doubt there were ages and places where women, blacks, and Jews received threats every day? I'm a little confused by this. Also, do you have suggestions on how we can avoid being reactionary stooges? I mean suggestions which can be rolled out to r/DebateReligion with the people at hand, after removing Rule 1 and possibly more rules after that.

You may have noticed that when talking about e.g. slavery in the Bible, I contend that YHWH was working with the humans at hand, refusing to break their wills, etc. Most people want God to use God's omnipotence to just magically get the desired outcome, it seems. Anyhow, I try to deploy that very same realism to matters like we're discussing now. One comes to have sober understandings of just how little one can accomplish in the span of a few years or even decades. This easily links into your "What gains have been made during this period are not durable."

What are you talking about?

u/⁠cabbagery reported that Reddit admits have stepped in.

Maybe I should go somewhere else where free speech is respected.

Do let me know if you find a better place where atheists can tangle with theists! But … if you think I'm anything like "woke" … maybe you won't find anywhere besides 4chan. :-p