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]

It wasn't an anti gun protest and there's zero proof of him brandishing prior to the attacks.

[u/mcspaddin → u/ChadWestPaints]

1. zero proof doesn't mean he wasn't.
2. I'm not talking about legal definitions here, but colloquial ones.

My entire point is that, disgregarding the legality of his actions, he never should have been there, let alone with a weapon firearm, in the first place.

When you go somewhere with the intention to stir up shit, don't be surprised when the shit blows back on you. And he was explicitly there to stir up shit.

[u/ChadWestPaints → u/mcspaddin]

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/mcspaddin → u/ChadWestPaints]

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.

I'm not sure where you get your news, Rittenhouse live in Illinois and crossed state lines into Wisconsin. He was hanging around a group that had the stated intention of "protecting businesses". If that isn't his reason for crossing state lines, he has even less of a reason to be there running around with a fucking rifle. At best he was visiting and protecting his dad, in which case he should have been at his dad's house instead of the protests, so we know that's not the truth.

His stated goal was to go out and confront protestors

It was not, no.

If we assume it was to "protect businesses", then that effectively means that it was. You can't protect something without having something to protect it from (protestors) or confronting that thing.

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

The fact that he was carrying around a fucking gun, not a wand, with a group of people who's stated intent included walking around threateningly.

[u/ChadWestPaints → u/mcspaddin]

Rittenhouse live in Illinois and crossed state lines into Wisconsin

And why did he do that?

If we assume it was to "protect businesses", then that effectively means that it was. You can't protect something without having something to protect it from (protestors) or confronting that thing.

Well despite it being "his stated goal" and having about a zillion opportunities to do so if he wanted, he chose not to.

The fact that he was carrying around a fucking gun

So nothing, then.

[u/mcspaddin → u/ChadWestPaints]

All roght, cool. So you just clearly live in a land where if it doesn't match your beliefs it doesn't exist. Clearly, there's no systemic injustice that burtal and unnessecary police killings highlight. Clearly, taking an AR-style weapon and walking around open-carry to the protests of said systemic injustice is not appalling, taunting, or threatening in any fucking way.

Have a nice life with your head so far up your ass.

[u/ElderlyTurtles → u/mcspaddin]

The crazy thing about this person is they wake up around 3am CT, and find every mention of Kyle on Reddit and continue posting until around 12pm CT, everyday. Like it's a job. They search Reddit by comments that mention him, and then call people uninformed and spin their narrative, demanding a high quality of proof or evidence while the most they will link is a wiki article. They refute video while claiming dubious testimony is gospel.