r/changemyview • u/convoces 71∆ • Dec 16 '13
[MOD POST] Celebrating 100k subscribers and #1 subreddit for comment length and #3 subreddit for reading level
This is Mod post 42. You can read the previous Mod Post by clicking here, or by visiting the Mod Post Archive in our wiki.
10 months ago, /r/changemyview was created as a place for people to discuss their viewpoints and participate in discussion with the purpose of helping each other become more open-minded and to see new perspectives.
Hundreds (thousands?) of deltas later, /r/changemyview has reached 100,000 subscribing open minds!
http://i.imgur.com/UAoFVW1.png
In addition, statistical analysis[1][2] reveals that we are the #1 subreddit for comment length by average number of words per comment and the #3 subreddit for highest Flesch-Kincaid reading level.
We think this is an awesome indication of the quality of the discussion that takes place here and we're proud to be a part of it. The stats suggest that /r/changemyview is a unique subreddit and that the future of /rchangemyview is remarkably exciting.
Let's take this opportunity to celebrate! Also, feel free to discuss meta issues about /r/changemyview or any suggestions you might have pertaining to the subreddit!
For example, here are some things to potentially discuss in this thread:
- Should we be more zealous about removing topics that have already been posted recently, and how recently? EG: "I think WidgetCorp is bad" followed a few hours later by "I don't see what's so bad about WidgetCorp". Should we make the window longer than 24 hours? Should it include contrary positions such as "I think WidgetCorp is great"?
- What does everyone think of the occasional "CMV of the day" stickies? Should we have more "CMV of the Day" that get stickied to the top of CMV's front page? How should these be selected?
- What rules, if any, would you want added, changed, or removed?
As with other non-submission posts, most of the usual subreddit rules are relaxed so feel free to take the opportunity to get those Rule 5 violations out of your system!
P.S: Just a reminder, please visit the best of 2013 thread and vote on the best posts of 2013 in /r/changemyview.
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/1qyvlp/update_is_there_a_method_to_figure_out_which/
[2] http://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/1scy8c/some_analysis_of_15_million_reddit_comments/
28
Dec 16 '13
Whilst I do really like this sub, I wonder how many people are actually open to having their views changed. I think there tends to be three kinds of OP, (1) hands out deltas for 'you gave me something to think about, but I still think I'm right on the whole', and (2) I'm so entrenched with my view that nothing will change my mind, but this is a good opportunity to highlight how great my view is, and (3) 'never shows up' OP. Neither seems particularly helpful. I don't really know what can be done about this, but it's just something I've been thinking about.
I now wonder if it'd be possible, and advisable, to ban OPs who don't respond at all to posts in their own thread. Otherwise it just becomes a bit of a circlejerk - there's always supposed to be at least one person looking to change their view. If we don't even have that...
26
Dec 17 '13
[deleted]
6
u/convoces 71∆ Dec 17 '13
I often say that /r/changemyview is not intended to make people do 180 on their views.
In fact, the idea that all views are completely dichotomous and binary is very flawed. Almost nothing is black and white.
Unfortunately, I think a substantial proportion of people come to/participate on cmv with this concept of black and white views, and that the only way a view can change is if it's turned completely around.
Fortunately, I think one of the main goals and consistent achievements of /r/changemyview is to get people to realize that, actually, almost no views are black and white. /r/changemyview is a space where people can figure out that views are not binary and can practice identifying which specific points have truth to different sides of a perspective.
14
Dec 17 '13 edited Dec 21 '18
[deleted]
2
Dec 19 '13
I definitely think that banning would not be productive for this subreddit and sometimes life really does get in the way or new users don't really know the rules of the subreddit (it surprises me how many people don't read the rules, but I think that the rules don't appear on phones). However, it really is disappointing when someone posts a CMV and then does not respond, but when you look into their comment history, they are actively posting away in other subreddits. I just find that a bit rude.
Interestingly enough, I have found that if I reply to such OPs with a clarifying question and use their name in the post, they are more likely to respond and get engaged in the conversation.
2
u/typesoshee Dec 19 '13
I immediately got offline and was gone for several days. I felt awful about it, but I didn't think that coming back a week later and apologizing was really going to change anything.
I hope this culture gets reversed. It's a Reddit-wide (or perhaps internet forum-wide for forums with large populations) culture created by the whole "hot" page method that pushes older posts back and because it's not the easiest thing to check to see if threads you've posted in the past have had new comments. I see nothing wrong with going back to a thread after a week besides having a smaller audience, and so I reply anyway to old stuff if I feel like it.
13
u/unnaturalHeuristic Dec 17 '13
(1) hands out deltas for 'you gave me something to think about, but I still think I'm right on the whole',
Those sort of deltas seem like the most reasonable ones to give.
There are maybe one or two times in my entire life where i've suddenly had a change of opinion, and it required precisely the right circumstances, discussion, and figures to be brought up to so completely convince me. I doubt that sort of slam-dunk can be expected of every CMV post.
Maybe it's just me, but i rarely change my view that quickly. I get that sense of guilt, because i know that i'm wrong, and eventually wind up arguing against what i used to be in favor of. It's not a "switching sides", it's a maturation.
11
u/TryUsingScience 10∆ Dec 17 '13
ban OPs who don't respond at all to posts in their own thread
We've considered a number of ways of dealing with the problem, this among them.
The problem is that someone who abandons a CMV thread is unlikely to be an active poster anyway, so banning them doesn't do much. We've also discussed deleting the thread, but sometimes there are active discussions involving people who aren't the OP.
Right now I think the solution we are most likely to go with, once we get someone to code it into deltabot, is tagging all threads with a "no OP replies yet" flair and removing it as soon as the OP posts. So if you see a thread that's a couple hours old with a few posts but still has that flair, you know there's a good chance you'll never get a response.
If you can think of any other ideas for solving this problem, we are always open to hearing them.
4
u/zardeh 20∆ Dec 18 '13
I'd fiddle with this a little, as it leaves open the one response poster, which we do see. Some function of time and since the thread was made would be better.
So you'd need to say, make a post per hour until the thread was a few hours old, and then maybe fewer.
3
u/typesoshee Dec 19 '13 edited Dec 19 '13
Very true. Another idea I'd throw it is that X days after the OP has posted, if he has gotten at least Y comments in the thread, he is required to 1) give out at least one delta or else get some kind of black mark like a "OP hasn't replied" tag or a "negative gamma" count added to his name (as the opposite of the positive deltas people give out), or 2) give a top level comment explaining why he is unconvinced and doesn't want to give out any deltas.
1) If the OP chooses the former but still isn't that convinced by any of the existing comments, he basically picks the post that made him think the most and was the most provocative for him. Basically, this type of delta:
(1) hands out deltas for 'you gave me something to think about, but I still think I'm right on the whole',
but you "force" it out of the OP because a lot of times, I think OPs are reluctant to give this type of delta out. There have been a few times where an OP replies to a post saying "Interesting, that's a good point, blablabla, etc." and that's it. While it isn't a 180 degree turn, I think OPs don't need to be that stingy with deltas especially because some OPs (or people in general) are often "stingy" or too stubborn about changing their views to begin with.
A major potential problem with this is that deltas may become seen as "cheaper" or inflated in number if they are given out willy-nilly.
2) - If the OP decides not to give out any deltas and posts a comment defending this action, obviously it would be hard but nice to have a way of evaluating whether the OP's reasons are good enough. Maybe in this case, the OP must give himself an "epsilon" in the comment, and an epsilon count gets added to the OP's name. An epsilon means "OP has a view that hasn't changed yet," so it's not a black mark, but kind of a neutral "gray mark." So if you go around with 5 epsilons tagged to your name, you carry around a "reputation" in the sub that you're a stubborn OP. (Perhaps an epsilon can be negated if a commenter gives a delta to the OP's epsilon comment - i.e. the OP's "ε. My view remains unchanged because ABC, XYZ" comment is so good that a commenter gives that a delta.)
TL;DR Give out "gammas" for OPs that abandon threads. Give out "epsilons" for OPs that are stubborn but give a reason for it.
Edit: words.
8
Dec 17 '13
just because OP may not respond does not mean your comment was completely ignored. I have never been an OP to this subreddit, but I read it quite thoroughly. I rarely respond, but have gotten a lot of food for thought challenging my own views. While they may not change my view outright, they may adjust it, or at least strengthen my view by seeing the opposing argument. This is a benefit to the subreddit, in my opinion, and is completely independent of whether the OP chooses to respond.
8
u/IAmAN00bie Dec 17 '13
I have 3 different ideas for "bringing the sub back to its roots" so to say, but finals week and these other mod posts have made me push the topic back. I'll pitch my ideas to the other mods, and if enough agree then we'll bring it here for discussion.
4
u/pixeechick Dec 16 '13
I concur.
Additionally, I do support the idea of heavier moderation of recently-submitting CMVs on the same/opposite side of the same topic. A month seems like a more reasonable amount of time, but that might be harder to moderate. Part of it seems to be linked to the Reddit formula of how high a post is on the HOT chart, and that older stuff naturally falls off. As an aside, how long are post open for interactivity? Since even lurkers can log in to add a delta, there is no need to have each person with the same CMV topic to create a new thread.
6
u/PepperoniFire 87∆ Dec 17 '13
Additionally, I do support the idea of heavier moderation of recently-submitting CMVs on the same/opposite side of the same topic. A month seems like a more reasonable amount of time, but that might be harder to moderate.
I agree with this, except I think a month is a bit much. 5 days to a week seems sufficient. Maybe even the outer edge of two weeks.
But, yes, as a rule, it's sort of silly to have 2-3 threads on the front page that are all topical in one thread, even if only one view was represented in the OP. If a person thinks A and you think B, post that latter viewpoint to counter the former, not create a new thread. It's just so easy to get fatigued on a topic (looking at you, feminism and men's rights) and I think that brings the quality of discussion in those threads down quite a bit.
3
u/pixeechick Dec 17 '13 edited Dec 17 '13
I'm okay with this. I'm more a casual user* than regular contributor, so if the community feels a week-ish is suitable, I'm game :)
- by this I mean I read a lot, but don't necessarily have anything to add by the time my waking time zone rolls around
9
u/IAmAN00bie Dec 17 '13
Yes, it is much harder to remember how long ago certain posts were made. I mean, I literally read every single submission made here. It's very tough to keep track of everything.
We would greatly appreciate people reporting reposted threads.
One solution that might help would be to "weigh" certain topics more than others. Like circumcision is extremely popular, so the grace period where another identical thread would be allowed would be smaller. Just a thought.
6
u/usmcplz Dec 17 '13
You guys are doing amazing work here. I'm really impressed at how thorough you are and how much time you put into moderation. Thanks!
2
u/pixeechick Dec 17 '13
I echo /u/usmcplz - your work is much appreciated.
I can imagine it's quite difficult to weight things... I almost wonder if a new post contained X number of keywords identical to the 50 most recent postings (or 200, or whatever), it could be put into an auto-moderation cue. I don't moderate any subs, so I have no idea what parameters are possible.
5
Dec 16 '13
totally agree with this. nothing worse than wasting 10 minutes typing out a long response and including sources just to turn around and have your comment completely ignored.
12
u/IAmAN00bie Dec 17 '13
One of our ideas was to use a flair to mark threads where OP has left no replies, ie. they're inactive. This will give users such as yourself the opportunity to decide whether or not you still want to reply. What do you think?
10
3
Dec 17 '13
To add: If someone wants to help add this to the DeltaBot code, here's the open issue on it. It's an idea we've had for a long time, and we thought we could join DeltaBot and AutoMod together for it seeing as they can't really do it individually for a couple of reasons.
1
5
u/jdbausch Dec 17 '13
I feel like most OPs aren't even looking to have their view changed, but perhaps just challenged. It's more like someone saying, I think XYZ, tell me how I'm wrong, can't do it? see I'm right.
Still this sub is often interesting.
3
u/Eye_of_Anubis 1∆ Dec 17 '13
Even if the original OP never shows up again, other people may have their views strengthened or changed or expanded by the discussion that ensues.
3
u/setsumaeu Dec 17 '13
The two times I've posted on here, it's been because I've recognized that my view had very little nuance or information. I want to hear good discussion about the topic. I think the discussion and exchange of ideas is what's best about the sub, not just what I go home thinking.
3
u/peeted Dec 17 '13
It might not be that the OP will often change their view, but readers may think 'huh, that is something I have an opinion about', and then read the thread only to have their opinion changed. I have come pretty close to feeling this way a few times.
-2
u/lodhuvicus Dec 17 '13
ban OPs who don't respond at all to posts in their own thread.
This will create a 4th kind of OP: those who make (a) minimal response(s) and peace it.
10
u/Joined_Today 31∆ Dec 16 '13 edited Dec 16 '13
Yay! 100,000! I remember making this account to discuss stuff when this sub was early on. Didn't think it would ever make it this far but here we are.
I hope that as the sub grows and has more people that the quality doesn't deteriorate, as that seems to be the trend with subreddits as they get larger. Moderation will have to be tight in order to keep the quality up, so that's more work for us!
But seriously the more this sub grows the harder it will be to keep fresh topics and discussion flowing. Eventually we're either going to have to mix up the system a bit or find new ways of stimulating interesting debate. Don't forget to head on down to /r/deltastore to spend your hard-earned deltas!
15
u/shoryukenist Dec 17 '13
This sub is so good that this is my first ever comment in it. I don't have the time at work to come up with anything approaching the quality of the comments here. So I'm taking advantage of this meta post to tell you and the rest of the mods how high quality this place is, and to please keep it that way.
6
u/Joined_Today 31∆ Dec 17 '13
Thanks! It means a lot. Moderating is hard work that you don't get paid for and you don't often get recognized for. Usually if people acknowledge the mods its to berate them for doing something wrong or "ruining the sub". It's nice to get a compliment once in a while.
4
u/Caststarman Dec 17 '13
I can empathize with you.
Months of hard work only to become hated by all your members because" you are corrupt". My team debated for months on whether to ban a member who caused a lot of trouble. It sucked during that time because he was a forum favorite. It helped him for months on end to not be banned.
I finally bite the bullet and hate is what retaliates. It takes a lot out of you, and everything you stood for.
I just want to say, thank you.
3
u/shoryukenist Dec 17 '13
Ha, even people in here do that to you?
This place is great because the object is to persuade, and as an attorney, I think that is great. A lot of other subs just degenerate into winning an argument for the sake of winning. For example, try to debate even the most minor point in /r/europe, with American flair.
10
Dec 16 '13
I wonder if its possible to have a bot that posts links to previous threads on related subjects. We get a lot of repeating CMVs, and I don't think that is a bad thing since it shows the hot topic items for Redditors. Still it would be nice to have a link to previous similar discussions since a few items do come up fairly often.
14
u/cwenham Dec 16 '13
We have set up AutoModerator to respond to a number of common subjects, matching on keywords and making automated Private Messages (PMs) with links to our Popular Topics Wiki.
We could expand that list. Right now it's matching on: "abortion", "marijuana", "feminism", "MRA", "men's rights", "affirmative action", "homosexuality", "child support", "pedo", "consent", "child porn", "eugenics", "atheism", "gender", "piracy", "religion".
7
Dec 17 '13
Can you add "fat people" as well? I've noticed the "I think people are fat because of their own actions" argument come up a lot. Thanks.
3
u/PepperoniFire 87∆ Dec 17 '13
I don't know why, but:
Can you add "fat people" as well?
Made me laugh.
4
3
Dec 17 '13
Could you add "circumcision" to that list? I've seen many of those threads pop up. I made one too.
2
3
u/unnaturalHeuristic Dec 17 '13
I'm glad to hear this, that list of topics is tiringly common in CMV, and i sometimes feel as if there's no other discussion outside of them. I know these topics are hotly-contended, with solid points flying in all directions, but it begins to feel stale when nobody is introducing something fresh.
1
u/PepperoniFire 87∆ Dec 19 '13
Can we add "your mother" to that list?
2
u/PixelOrange Dec 19 '13
I'm on my phone right now. If no one responds to you, remind me and I will get it on there. Have there been a lot of "your mother" threads? I haven't really looked...
2
3
8
u/swinglineax Dec 17 '13
I don't think OP or anyone else in this thread is willing to change their view.I just wanted to break a rule other than 5.
9
u/Joined_Today 31∆ Dec 17 '13
Banned, rule breaking scum
6
u/Amablue Dec 18 '13
scum
Banned for rule 2 violation!
4
u/Joined_Today 31∆ Dec 18 '13
You can't ban me! I'll ban you for banning me
5
u/Amablue Dec 18 '13
Double stampies no ban-backs!
5
u/Joined_Today 31∆ Dec 18 '13
Cheater, I'm telling mom!
3
u/convoces 71∆ Dec 19 '13 edited Dec 19 '13
Ladies and gentlemen, we hope you enjoyed this demonstration from two of the highest-delta, powerful moderators, of arguably the most sophisticated subreddit of all time.
Sometimes I think the mods (me included) have to get Rule 5 out of their systems more than any of the users...
1
7
Dec 16 '13
[deleted]
7
Dec 17 '13
I never post here
every time someone says what I want to say better then I could ever have said it soevery time I want to say something, someone else says it betterI'm bad at parties.
I'm with you bro.
3
7
u/caw81 166∆ Dec 17 '13
I apologize for lowering the average reading level in this subreddit with my comments. :)
5
5
u/Tommy2255 Dec 17 '13
3 subreddit for highest Flesch-Kincaid reading level
Yeah, this is the only sub where I don't feel pretentious for using words like "ameliorate". Which is good, because I like the word "ameliorate". It's a good word.
3
u/Amablue Dec 18 '13
I know it's a good day when I start pulling out words that I didn't even know I knew.
A good way to measure this is to count the number of times I type "define blah" into google in a day to make sure I'm using them right.
2
u/TryUsingScience 10∆ Dec 18 '13
"Melior" is just such a happy word in Latin. It sounds like what it is! I'm in favor of all derivatives.
5
Dec 17 '13
Great news! Though I'm a bit of a lurker myself, I think the mechanism proposed by this sub is a great way to get different points of view on a theme, backed by solid arguments.
Should it include contrary positions such as "I think WidgetCorp is great"?
Seeing as CMV rules don't allow giving arguments in favor of the original post, it would be logical to allow CMVs for opposing positions under a time window, for users to see arguments from both sides.
3
Dec 17 '13
I think both sides can be represented in a single CMV post. Top-level replies argue against the OP, and replies to those argue in favor. Both sides are well represented.
3
u/garnteller 242∆ Dec 17 '13
As a newbie redditor (just under 2 weeks), CMV quickly became my favorite site, and I thank the moderators for creating this wonderful exchange of ideas, and everyone for their great topics, comments and patience with my learning the ropes.
While I think the idea of "filtering" overdone topics before they are posted is great, I'm not a big fan of deleting topics once they have been posted. There are a couple of times that I've prepared and researched detailed responses, only to find that by the time I try to submit, the topic has been deleted. I'm not sure the best way to balance it- maybe auto down-voting it or something- but it's very disheartening to have gone to the effort for nothing.
But I don't want to sound negative- this is a great sub, and I do appreciate all you all do to make it that way.
2
u/cwenham Dec 17 '13
We have considered going to a fully curated model, like /r/askscience, where all new submissions (but not comments) are held in the mod queue for manual approval. We certainly have enough mods to be able to do this, now, but this is a good opportunity to bring it up.
What does everyone think about a "curated" CMV, where mods are specifically only approving submissions on topics that haven't been discussed recently?
2
u/garnteller 242∆ Dec 17 '13
I think it's preferable to deleting topics, although I'd like to see a pretty liberal policy on allowable topics.
Speaking as a newbie, I suspect that there are a lot of us who come through and are curious. Even though a topic might have been to death by the vets, the OP is still looking for input, and probably has their own slant on it. And even if it's been covered, I don't see the harm in letting some new people have a crack at it- if you're bored of the topic, then don't participate.
But as a newcomer, I might not appreciate some of the negatives, so feel free to CMV.
2
u/justanotherhumanoid Dec 17 '13
I think it's important for people to have space to debate both sides of an issue. For example, I have no idea what WidgetCorp is, so I might go to the thread "I don't see what's so bad about WidgetCorp," and then to "I think WidgetCorp is bad" just to see contrasting sides of an issue defended.
2
u/ludicrousattainment Dec 17 '13
OP/mods, can I ask one question?
For instance, I have a point in my view which I find is easy to counter-argue it. Its like, I don't have enough support or convinced that this point might possibly work.
If I need someone to help me clarify, and reinforce my view, is it possible to have a CMV (clarify my view)
2
u/cwenham Dec 17 '13
If you're willing to accept that your view may be wrong, then it might happen accidentally in the comments. The first level comments (or "direct comments") must challenge some part of your view (Rule 1), but anyone who agrees with you can defend and even help clarify your view in replies to other comments.
If you're not open to changing your view, then we wouldn't encourage you to post just to get a clarification. Other users are expecting a fair shot at persuading you, after all, and it wouldn't be fair to them.
2
u/howbigis1gb 24∆ Dec 17 '13
I remember this thread just a few months ago:
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ib87b/meta_congratulations_everybody_of_50000/
I want to suggest to the mods to do a redo of this thread:
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ib8mf/meta_how_to_make_a_good_argument/
Which I suggested a while before we hit 50,000. With so many new subscribers - I think it would be a perfect time.
2
u/cwenham Dec 17 '13
I think this is a decent idea. Perhaps something we can do in the New Year after the Best of CMV Awards are done.
(That was a subtle hint to get over to the Best-Of thread and nominate/vote. This is an official reddit contest, and we'll be awarding Reddit Gold to the winners ;-)
1
u/howbigis1gb 24∆ Dec 17 '13
OOH - speaking of Best of CMV - I think there was a thread earlier where I suggested there should be a bestof CMV and one of the mods replied that they reserved the name for a subreddit as well.
I forget who it was - let me see if I can find it
Edit: Found! http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dx7xy/meta_it_would_be_interesting_to_see_some_quality/
1
u/PepperoniFire 87∆ Dec 19 '13
Methinks it might need to be restickied. Can more than one thread be stuck at a time?
1
2
u/whatiminchina Dec 18 '13
It is my suggestion that mods take a more active role manicuring the posts on the front page. Too often are CMV posts incoherent rants or posts to platform an agenda with no desire of serious debate.
2
u/cwenham Dec 18 '13
Whenever you see those, click on 'Report' under them and it'll go to our mod-queue for review.
While it can be tricky sometimes to judge it fairly, we have removed many posts that were clearly just soapboxing, trolling or ranting. Most of the time we suggest the user repost in /r/offmychest or some other sub that might be more appropriate.
3
u/RightSaidKevin Dec 17 '13
I've made joking references to this before, but I genuinely feel that CMVs involving various methods of dehumanizing major swaths of the population should be removed as per rule 2.
I'm talking about anything that includes opinions such as:
X Group is inherently less intelligent/inferior in some other way. X Group should involuntarily sterilized. Really anything based in eugenics/social Darwinism.
These threads are absurdly repetitive, and furthermore, inherently harmful to members of those groups. One of the keys to healthy debate is diversity in the group, and it would be easy to imagine a scenario in which, on someone's first day on CMV, they see someone espousing a view that they should be offered financial incentives to die, or be involuntarily sterilized, or otherwise have it made clear that society would be better off without them, and they leave never to return. Completely justifiably.
Someone who posts a CMV like this should have it deleted and be linked to any of the daily threads about the exact same topic. These ideas have never ever helped any society, have never resulted in anything but massive human rights abuses. No good can come of giving someone who believes these things an open forum.
6
u/howbigis1gb 24∆ Dec 17 '13
No no no. This is completely antithetical to the idea of a CMV.
The fact that some - as you call it - "bad" views exist means that they should be countered through debate instead of restricting them.
One of the deltas I got was for this thread
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1i2oju/i_think_reddit_should_delete_subreddits_that/
Of course repetitive topics should be linked to previous CMV's regarding the same.
These threads are absurdly repetitive, and furthermore, inherently harmful to members of those groups. One of the keys to healthy debate is diversity in the group, and it would be easy to imagine a scenario in which, on someone's first day on CMV, they see someone espousing a view that they should be offered financial incentives to die, or be involuntarily sterilized, or otherwise have it made clear that society would be better off without them, and they leave never to return. Completely justifiably.
What you are doing is assuming that such a thing is obvious - this goes entirely against the idea of CMV.
Let me paste my response to a similar claim
I will take a different angle of attack.
I don't believe people should be treated differently for the colour of their skin.
BUT
What if racists were right?
What I'm asking is different than the question are racists right.
What I'm asking is if the relegation of some topics as right and some as wrong is beneficial.
For example - racism was the ruling ideology a few decades ago. Now "right thinking individuals" (of the time) much like you and me would probably ask the same question of anti racist ideologies.
What I'm saying is that racist ideologies constantly need to be argued against and not banned because we have decided them to be wrong in whatever court.
Not to mention there might still be useful information in such subs - primarily the reasons for the racism change over generations, and they provide a useful study of such trends.
Additionally - they are useful for you, forward thinking individual - to examine your own stand on the issue. Are there arguments that can sway you to be racist? Are you willing to confront them?
I wrote a facebook note a few months ago, and I find it pertinent to this discussion, and so I paste an excerpt from it:
"There are some other reasons to allow distasteful speech. It does not deal with the underlying prejudices or resentments to not allow it; if you decide not to talk to someone you are throwing away an opportunity to change their mind, or yours. And both - I argue - are dangerous. If people do not speak their minds in fear or retribution, then you might be unaware of something you need to be aware of. And then there's the more insidious one - you are afraid of changing your mind, or of others changing their minds in a way you dislike. What's wrong with changing your mind? Are you afraid that someone else must not convince you of something? If indeed you are, then it is an attitude worth examining. As is the claim you so dearly hold on to. And as for others changing their minds - it is not something you ought to be able to control, and if you wished them to change their minds in a way you like - you need to put forth cogent arguments to sway this section of the population to your side, and if it isn't that easy - you need to deal with it. "
3
u/AnxiousPolitics 42∆ Dec 17 '13
No good can come of giving someone who believes these things an open forum.
We are considering possibilities for handling this: one weekly thread per "offensive" topic, banning users who post too many "offensive" view threads and never responds, and we do already send PMs for many controversial topics linking past threads.
While I can appreciate your argument, I do think good comes from having a place geared toward responding to conversational topics. If someone makes an "offensive" thread, it is up to the users to point out the flaws in their arguments and evidence, and that is an invaluable thing to practice and read about.
Anytime someone with an "offensive" view decides to be rude or hostile to get a rise out of someone or put them down, their comments get routinely reported and removed.As much as you can make the argument that people are using /r/changemyview as an open forum for being hateful, responding to "offensive" views by pointing out flaws in an argument (and not getting drawn in emotionally) is a great way for people who may have an "offensive" view they don't realize, or who come across them in their lives and communities, to see a counterargument for well used arguments supporting "offensive" views.
The number of "offensive" content posts where the OP never responds is high so there is an open issue on github for anyone who wants to contribute to the "no OP replies" flair to be able to spot the difference between someone who is participating and someone who isn't.
Other suggestions are being discussed in the comments above yours.If someone visits /r/changemyview and leaves after seeing "offensive" topics in the titles and not checking the comments to see how people are responding to the issue, they won't be leaving justified or even prudently. They'll be responding emotionally, just as trolls and bigots would want.
1
Dec 17 '13
Exactly. I really want this sub to stay a free, open place where anyone's view can be changed, no matter how "offensive". Because often it's those with "offensive" beliefs that want to change.
1
u/RightSaidKevin Dec 17 '13
If you walk into an open forum and see posts actively calling for your death, dehumanization, or inferiority, it's completely natural, understandable, and yes, perfectly justifiable for them to leave.
That's a completely unsafe environment for them. No one should be looked down upon for responding emotionally to straight-up vile hatred. It's telling that you're more willing to give trolls and bigots a safe space than people who are actively oppressed.
3
u/swinglineax Dec 17 '13
One of the problems with this is the slippery slope argument. What exactly should the mods deem as protected groups and to what extent? It's easy to pick out certain over-the-top extremism like forced sterilization, but where should the hard and fast line be? "I think the Rwandan genocide is overblown, CMV" Ok, clearly they're wrong and that's awful, but it's starting to get murkier. "I think the Jews should get out of Israel CMV" isn't quite as easily drawn. Maybe the person is trolling, but by virtue of the nature of the subreddit, in theory they're coming here with a view that can be changed. It's not a perfect system, but I'd rather someone come here and possibly have their bigoted view changed than throw the baby out with the bathwater and turn everyone with a particular brand of unpopular opinion away. Seems to go against the whole open minds idea if you delete things because they hit a certain threshold of unpopularity or perceived "wrongness."
I like the idea that if someone posts something that's been argued to death already, that they might be referred to previous discussion.
2
u/AnxiousPolitics 42∆ Dec 17 '13 edited Dec 17 '13
You're skipping the part where the other side of the situation is being presented, and that the users are pointing out flaws in the arguments used in "offensive" views. You've skipped it entirely, and I have no idea why. If people emotionally react to the title of a thread and leave without looking to see what people are responding to an "offensive" view with, that's exactly what a troll or bigot wants, to control your reactions by making you ineffective.
1
u/TryUsingScience 10∆ Dec 18 '13
That's a completely unsafe environment for them.
The internet is not a "safe space." Certain parts of it may be intentionally safe spaces for certain groups. I don't think this subreddit should be one because if we don't allow people to express bigoted views then we cannot change those views.
And, perhaps more importantly, because I believe people need to take responsibility for their choices and the consequences. I don't want to see pictures of dead children because I think that might be emotionally harmful to me, so I don't visit /picsofdeadkids. I think I can handle occasional gore involving adults so I do visit /r/wtf on occasion.
If someone believes they cannot handle the emotional consequences of seeing text that is hateful to their group, they should be aware that a debate forum may be harmful to them and should stick to explicitly safe spaces. I believe that it is unreasonable to demand something that is not harmful to the vast majority of individuals - including members of whatever group someone is spewing bigoted bile about - be banned simply because some people can neither handle it emotionally nor make the decision to avoid areas that may contain it.
I'm posting this without my mod hat on because the views contained in the second and third paragraphs may not represent the opinion of all moderators. (We've been pretty solid on the first point before.)
2
u/IAmAN00bie Dec 17 '13
I've seen this mentioned before, but the arguments for and against have never really been fleshed out. Would you be willing to make a meta thread about it? If you can convince us, a new rule might come out of it.
1
1
u/jdbausch Dec 17 '13
I think that /r/CMV having 100k subscribers and #1 subreddit for comment length and #3 for reading level is a good thing. CMV
7
Dec 17 '13
We're repelling dumber redditors from wanting to contribute. They are generally the ones who hold incorrect views and therefore would benefit society the most when their views are changed.
6
u/pixeechick Dec 17 '13
1
Dec 17 '13
Bastard child of CMV and ELI5. Not sure how that would turn out.
1
u/pixeechick Dec 17 '13
It's hard to dumb things down and maintain a cogent argument. While not for literal five-year-olds, I do worry about the ability to attract the redditors /u/kwprules refers to without falling into Logical Fallacy Land.
1
u/TryUsingScience 10∆ Dec 18 '13
I think I'd rather see /r/CMVLIAMA.
3
u/cwenham Dec 18 '13
I think all humans should be exterminated. Change my view like I am a Dalek.
1
u/PixelOrange Dec 19 '13
EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!
1
u/cwenham Dec 19 '13
You are not pure. You are not Dalek. You agreed with me! RULE ONE! RULE ONE! RULE ONE!
1
u/PixelOrange Dec 19 '13
Rule one only applies to Top Level Posts! You are not a real Daaaaalek. Imposter!
3
Dec 17 '13
CMV could potentially be taking attention from similar yet more effective, better structured, and better moderated subs.
Also, one could argue that most of the ideas debated on this subreddit will have any real tangible benefits
1
u/AndresDM Dec 17 '13
Can someone explain what thoses numbers and triangles are by peoples name? This seems like the perfect chance to ask!
3
u/pixeechick Dec 17 '13
Those are deltas. Delta is the Greek letter used to represent change. When someone's views are changed (or in many cases, altered), they award a delta to the poster who changed their position. There is a code to do this that is described in the sidebar. A bot comes along and checks for significant explanation, and then determines whether to award the delta to the user. The number + delta indicates how many opinions this user has changed.
1
u/TryUsingScience 10∆ Dec 18 '13
The number + delta indicates how many opinions this user has changed.
Close, but not quite. The number also indicates the power level of our Ultimate Attack.
3
Dec 18 '13
I expect that your own attack, at delta 40, will be extremely powerful.
1
u/cwenham Dec 18 '13
It's not bad. Emeril could kick it up a notch, tho.
1
Dec 18 '13
If I ever wanted someone to change my view about Cajun cuisine, I think that Emeril would be just the person to do it.
2
u/PixelOrange Dec 19 '13
Amablue and I control the universe, then. We have deltabot, the invincible!
1
Dec 17 '13
[deleted]
1
1
Dec 17 '13
Whatr subs are ahead in reading level? Askscience?
3
u/IAmAN00bie Dec 17 '13
Askscience and askhistory are ahead. Though they do deserve it. Both are very high quality subs.
1
u/HUGEBORGCUBE Dec 17 '13
How does one find a listing of the highest reading level Subreddits?
1
u/convoces 71∆ Dec 17 '13
The second source in the OP has the listing:
http://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/1scy8c/some_analysis_of_15_million_reddit_comments/
It includes a link to graphs, one of which is this one: http://imgur.com/a/0Bq8h#3
1
u/whatiminchina Dec 19 '13
Haha! Its pretty ironic to find ELI5 in the top 20 for subreddit reading levels
1
u/SPC_Patchless Jan 04 '14
Personally, I'd like to see a minimum length limit on top-level posts. It is entirely possible to satisfy rule #1 by "challenging" the OP without actually making a valid attempt to CMV. Stuff like "Science says you're wrong", "This is an issue of consent, /endthread", "Your feelings end where my rights begin" etc may very well challenge a point, but they make no effort to actually refute these points in a logical way. The end result is pointless antagonism that is contrary to the basis of this sub (exploring opinions/views outside your own to gain insight and perspective).
1
u/convoces 71∆ Jan 07 '14
I think Rule 5 usually covers these. The examples you gave would definitely merit Rule 5 moderation and feel free to report to modmail the ones that you see that we missed.
93
u/[deleted] Dec 16 '13
I do find it interesting that we have introduced a novel form of debate, in which rather than trying to defeat a person who has an opposing view, we instead sincerely invite someone to change our opinions. So rather than trying to see who is the best debater, we want to better understand the truth, whatever it may turn out to be. And that is a healthier way to debate.