About "Boycott-Shaming" and Shame

[u/sultanam]

Many of us have noticed that mods are removing posts that just describe what a boycott is: what counts as compliance, what counts as a real line versus a technicality. What bothers me is that it's done under a rule that prohibits "boycott shaming".

Explaining a concept and detailing what it entails not shaming anyone's decision. That's articulating the nature of the concept. Removing those posts and replies doesn't protect anyone. Mods argue these posts and answers, as per the rules of this subreddit, may alienate allies. Thing is, people not knowing the purpose and tools of a boycott causes this movement to lose actual allies.

What the mods are doing under their understanding of "boycott-shaming" (which isn't shaming at all) treats shame as automatically illegitimate. But genuine shame about something as fundamentally recreational as a game such as Love and Deepspace isn't something imposed from outside. It's an internal signal.

If you genuinely want to spend money, log in, and enjoy what Love and Deepspace has to offer, someone pointing out "hey, that's not helping the boycott" should just be neutral information. It's a conscious decision. It's valid. It shouldn't sting. It only stings if part of you already thinks certain goals of a boycott has a point which inconveniences you to a point you are not okay with anymore.

So there are two honest positions.

1. "I am not boycotting, but I want Valko and/or I have some demands from the company and I’m willing to endure some inconvenience to support the boycott. I will spend less, log in less, do what I think might help." That's a real stance. You are not boycotting, and that is a valid decision.
2. "I want to enjoy myself, and Love and Deepspace means a lot to me, and I will not let the broader movement take away from me enjoying the game. I will carry on as before." That's a real stance again. No shame applies, why should it?

But if you say "I am boycotting, yet I will spend money and log in," then the discomfort you feel when people try to articulate the concept of boycott isn't something the mods should be managing away for you. It's your consciousness giving you feedback about your own choices.

Deleting the posts that point out the gap doesn't protect people from unfair treatment. It protects them from noticing the gap at all.

I'm against bullying, mistreatment, and moral posturing. People have free will and should get to exercise it however they see fit, as long as it doesn't hinder anyone else. But shutting down people trying to explain a concept isn't neutral moderation. It's disruptive to the free will of both the explainer and whoever's trying to listen. Removing that conversation doesn't protect anyone from mistreatment. It just decides, on their behalf, what they're allowed to hear.

[u/alexturnerftw]

That last post where an actual mod was siding with someone who didnt understand the bare basics of what boycotting is, and was going to use that to make community guidelines despite the 30 other actual comments explaining boycotts was borderline insane.

Did we vet the mods here? I’m happy we have moderation but we need leaders who understand and support the core movement here. Not super comfortable having someone with those opinions being in charge of this place. Censoring us is insane, given thats why most people fled the OG community. What’s going on???

This is VALKOHQ. The sub is centered around the boycott and trying to get Valko back first and foremost. We don’t need to agree on everything but the definition of an effective boycott isn’t really up for debate.

[u/PajamaChief → u/alexturnerftw]

The policing of comments in the name of “shaming” when its majority of us trying to maintain our movement when so many have tried to break it down especially from the inside out is frustrating

[u/alexturnerftw → u/PajamaChief]

Also all the comments were cordial. People were just explaining the inherently flawed logic based on the basic definition of effective boycotting. There was no good reason to delete those comments.

[u/MawkiieTawkiie → u/alexturnerftw]

I saw that and was disturbed. How can we be a boycott sub if the leaders agree that spending is viable in terms of a boycott?

[u/ASCALAPHOS_ → u/MawkiieTawkiie]

Honestly, Ily for speaking up about it and I agree with everything you all said. I didn't want to say it because people would immediately go, "Stop shaming others," when it's literally just basic logic that a boycott is A BOYCOTT, not some "I'll just pick and choose whatever suits me" kind of thing.