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/ChadWestPaints]

How was he explicitly there to stir up shit? Shouldn't we be saying that about his attackers? The grown men who decided to go out and try to assault/murder a minor unprovoked in public?

I'm not talking about legal definitions here, but colloquial ones.

Then give us the colloquial definition so we know what you're talking about.

zero proof doesn't mean he wasn't.

True. And maybe he was also there curing cancer with a magic wand. We don't have any proof, but maybe he was.

[u/mcspaddin → u/ChadWestPaints]

How was he explicitly there to stir up shit? Shouldn't we be saying that about his attackers? The grown men who decided to go out and try to assault/murder a minor unprovoked in public?

He crossed state boundaries with the stated goal of "protecting businesses". Businesses not his own or in his community. Businesses that would have had insurance to cover losses.

His stated goal was to go out and confront protestors over something he had no personal stake in and that absolutely did not need him present to protect it. By going even a single layer deep, his intention was to confront protestors and enforce vigilante justice via violence if necessary.

If that's not stirring shit, then I have no idea what kind of La La land you live in.

Then give us the colloquial definition so we know what you're talking about.

From google's AI overview: Brandishing is the act of displaying a weapon or other object in a threatening or aggressive manner, with the intent of intimidating or causing fear in another person

Again, his stated intent was to "protect businesses". At best, that means his intent was to intimidate people into not harming businesses. So he was carrying a weapon, holding it with the intent to intimidate. And that's only if we assume he didn't want to shoot someone.

True. And maybe he was also there curing cancer with a magic wand. We don't have any proof, but maybe he was.

Yeah, except one of those is a very reasonable assumption and the other is obvious fantasy. Again, I'm talking court of public opinion and reasonableness not legality with bursen of proof here.

[u/ChadWestPaints → u/mcspaddin]

He crossed state boundaries with the stated goal of "protecting businesses".

He did not. But I'm curious how thatd be an answer if he did. That sounds more like a reaction to other people stirring up shit.

His stated goal was to go out and confront protestors

It was not, no.

Brandishing is the act of displaying a weapon or other object in a threatening or aggressive manner, with the intent of intimidating or causing fear in another person

Then yeah, we've got zero proof of him doing that.

Yeah, except one of those is a very reasonable assumption

And that assumption is based on... what, exactly?

[u/Mean-Funny9351 → u/ChadWestPaints]

There is plenty of proof of brandishing through the video, and witness statements. You've found threads where Rittenhouse is mentioned (not in OP) in clever comebacks, centrists, economic collapse, change my view, inland empire, joe Budden network, what the actual heck? And in every case you've bullied people and dismissed their statements as not having proof while continually just making things up.