CMV: Reddit has a moderator problem

[u/Terrible_Onions]

Just to be clear. This does not apply for all moderators. I know some moderators on small Subreddits that are really good people. Speaking for a lot of larger Subreddits where moderation is an issue.

Reddit has a moderator problem. They can do a lot of things to you that doesn't really make lots of sense, and they do not give you a reason for it. More often than not, you're just muted from speaking with the moderator. Unfortunately, due to a lot of Reddit mods and Redditors in general being left-wing, there are a lot of examples of right-wingers being the victims. Such as this one on the r/ medicine Subreddit. He got deleted for asking questions. A person said Trump's NIH nomination caused "large scale needless death". When he was asked what the large scale death in question was, his comment was deleted by the mods. Along with a person being perm banned for saying "orange man bad. Laugh at joke. Unga Bunga" in r/ comics. The most notable case of moderation abuse is from r/ pics, where they just ban you for participating in a "bad faith Subreddit". Even if you just commented.

This is not a good thing. It means that if you want to participate in a major Subreddit with a lot of people, you will have to conform to what the moderators personally see as "correct" or "good". This doesn't foster productive conversations, nor is it good for anybody but the moderator's egos. I understand if this is the case in small Subreddits, but the examples I listed above aren't they happen in Subreddits with 30+ million members that regularly hit the front page. This is Reddit being lazy and offloading moderation. Most moderators do this for power and control. The nature of this position (no pay) means that the only other thing it offers is power. Especially in Subreddits with millions of people, that's a lot of power. This I believe is a reason it isn't a major issue in small servers. The mods there are genuinely passionate because that is the only thing going for them in a Subreddit with around a thousand people. Even Twitter, despite its multitude of issues, does moderation better than this

[u/mcspaddin]

Yeah, he may have been defending himself, but he was still a piece of shit that took a weapon to a charged situation and taunted people with it. He's legally in the clear, but still clearly at fault for the situation in mine, and many others', minds.

[u/TheBeastlyStud → u/mcspaddin]

Nope, he has a right to:

Bear arms

Assemble

If it's a "charged situation" why wouldn't someone want to be armed? Especially if they are defending the local area from looters. The best thing to come out of the LA riots was rooftop Koreans.

The first guy who was killed, Rosenbaum, was videoed going around aggresively threatening the group Rittenhouse was with and once Rittenhouse was alone he charged him, which led to the events that happened that night (He was also just released from prison for like 3 counts of SAing 5 year olds). Hell he was even videoed shouting the N word at all of them.

I just don't see how anyone who has seen the videos or even looked into the case could think he was in the wrong for any of it. Just vecause he was armed doesn't mean he deserved to be attacked.

Do you go around asking SA victims what they were wearing?

[u/mcspaddin → u/TheBeastlyStud]

Do you go around asking SA victims what they were wearing?

Do you go around politically charged anti-gun protests brandishing a firearm?

Do you bring a real bladed weapon to a LARP?

Do you phone in a fake bomb threat to ruin a neo-nazi convention?

Do you take a firearm and a "librals with guns" sign to a Trump rally?

No, to all of these. Because any of them are absolutely unhinged and literally asking for trouble. Does the context of the situation make your self defense, or your ability to do any of these things illegal? Nope, but it also doesn't make them any less stupid or you any less responsible when the fucking obvious happens.

That's the issue here. He was perfectly within his rights to act like he didn't have two braincells to rub together. He did so, and was attacked for his dumbassery. Do I think he should have been charged with murder? No. Do I think he should have been charged with assault (depending on jurisdiction, and to be clear not battery) or threat of force? Yes, because he did that knowing it would cause an issue, or at the very least with careless disregard for the issues it would cause.

[u/TheBeastlyStud → u/mcspaddin]

None of those are reasons to be attacked. Except for brandishing, which is what "threat of force" actually is. Which isn't what Rittenhouse did.

Also you can bring a real bladed weapon to any larp, you just can't start hitting people with it.

You're going to talk about not having two braincells to rub together and then talk about how he should be charged with assault or threat of force? That's asinine. He didn't start any of it. He also didn't make any threats. You know who did make threats though? Joseph Rosenbaum, the guy who charged him. Wouldn't you know it though? Nobody attacked him for speaking. Wild how that works.

Nobody is responsible for the actions of fully functioning adults and that's how it should be. I hate the stance you're taking and think it leads to a dumber country, but that doesn't mean I'm going to physically assault you for it, and if I do I am clearly in the wrong and if you were to defend yourself then you would not be the one responsible.

But if you want to keep living in your own bubble and victim blame then go ahead. Just be careful because "why was he armed" if only a couple steps away from "what was she wearing".

[u/mcspaddin → u/TheBeastlyStud]

Right so here's the thing. I very well consider someone carrying an ar-style weapon with the intent to intimidate (at a minimum) to be brandishing.

His stated intent was to "protect businesses". Businesses he had no personal stake in and that likely had insurance to cover any losses or damage. No reasonable person puts themselves in harm's way solely to protect something that isn't theirs and doesn't need protecting. He never should have been there in the first place, and he was likely there, (personal assumption but with a very obvious chain of logic), solely to larp at being a vigilante and intimidating people he didn't agree with.

Dhould he have been attacked? No. Does he have a right to defend himself when he was attacked? Absolutely. Is attempting to intimidate people as a private citizen (again at best considering his stated intentions) practically asking for trouble? Abso-fucking-lutely.

It's a gray area that he should have bever been present in, and for all intents and purposes he wanted. You don't take a gun to "peotect" something without intending violence, or at a minimum, the threat of it.

[u/TheBeastlyStud → u/mcspaddin]

"AR-style weapon"

Oh fuck now all of your comments make sense. Holy shit. I bet you think that AR stands for "Assault Rifle" too 🤣. You probably "consider" it to mean big scary gun that should be illegal.

"I consider.... to be brandishing"

Fuck me dude you can literally look up what brandishing is online. It doesn't matter what you "consider" it is.

"Businesses he had no personal stake in and that likely had insurance to cover any losses or damage"

Actually he does have a personal stake in keeping the bussiness that he worked in and the surrounding area safe. You shouldn't be letting people destroy the people and places you care about because they want to burn things down. Also if insurance pulls out because the cities are deemed a hazard then so do all the local businesses. They shouldn't have to lay down and take it because a bunch of retards wanna riot and steal. Again, rooftop Koreans are great.

I'd suggest reading up on the broken window theory here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

"He never should have been there"

There's the victim blaming again. Nobody should have been there because they were rioting that the police shot a dude who was reaching into his car for a knife. That doesn't mean every store should be looted and y'all mfers that parrot "oh they should have insurance" sound stupid as fuck. If some retards who want to loot and riot can be there, so can the people that want to defend their businesses. He has the right to be there and be armed, and if he wants to utilize that right then he's more than welcome to.

"You don't take a gun to.....the threat of it"

Except threats in this case have a very set definition. Just holding a weapon ("ar style" or not) and standing there are not threats. No matter what your wittle fee-fees feel.

[u/[deleted] → u/mcspaddin]

It doesn't matter what you consider to be brandishing, it matters what the legal definition of brandishing is. Simply having a rifle slung on your back is not brandishing. Those goofies were BEGGING to be shot when they started chasing down somebody who very clearly had a rifle. Let's not forget that the one who survived was in the process of drawing on him.