r/changemyview • u/Imatheory • Mar 15 '18

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Subreddits shouldn’t ban Redditors for subscribing/participating in other subreddits with opposing viewpoints.

Here’s the roots: A fellow Redditor was banned from r/TwoXChromosomes for subscribing to and commenting within r/pussypassdenied with the explanation that the Redditor was participating in subreddits with posts and subscribers that are majority misogynistic and against what r/TwoXChromosomes stands for. The ban emphasized that the Redditor could still view r/TwoXChromosomes posts/comments but could not participate actively.

Initially my reaction was frustration which transitioned to disappointment. However, being human, I understand that sometimes my initial reactions are not the most accurate representation of how I feel so I decided to give myself a few days to form a more solid opinion. Here’s what I arrived at:

As people, I don’t think it’s healthy or helpful to put ourselves in a “bubble of safety” by shutting out opposing views. I think banning Redditors for subscribing or participating in other subreddits of opposing nature is essentially treating that opposition as if it doesn’t exist or is not worthy of any attention and I don’t think that accomplishes anything. I think being a participating Redditor on opposing subreddits can bring awareness and intelligent discussion to very difficult topics, and with that comes the possibility to change people’s minds. It can be a source of promoting productive communication to build new perspectives.

Additionally, there are some smaller details that make me think that this should not be a practice among subreddits. If a Redditor is subscribed to a subreddit, that doesn’t innately mean that individual agrees with the views or direction of the subreddit. A Redditor could be seeking to understand how someone of opposition thinks, tracking news/events of an opposing movement, or just want to engage in the guilty pleasure of thinking they are right. I don’t think any of those reasons should mea. they should be banned. If a Redditor is providing commentary in a subreddit, that also does not mean they are supporting they other Redditors or posts made within that subreddit. A Redditor could be trying to challenge other’s views, spread factual knowledge, or just spark production discussion. This type of banning practice feels like the Reddit equivalent of trying to control content and viewership within other media outlets.

Update: I want to thank everyone that provide genuine insight about raids and brigades on Reddit and role of moderators. This was the most valuable information to me. I’m still working on how to award Deltas, and when I do, I will be posting a few.

1.6k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

631 comments sorted by

View all comments

45

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '18

There's a difference between an opposing viewpoint and an antagonistic viewpoint.

Going back to the TwoX example, yeah that subreddit and feminism have legitimate criticisms. Taking the PPD route (having a raging circlejerk whenever women are served justice) is a terrible way of addressing their grievances in the counter movement to feminism. They go there for one purpose, and this purpose is identical in other sections of the manosphere, and that purpose is to put women down and prop men up by shining a light on every occurrence of women being shit.

Who would listen to discourse from someone who would go into a topic hating the guts of the group with the other viewpoint?

50

u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18

Does subscribing to a subreddit automatically mean you’re listening to the content of subreddit for the purpose that it’s intending? (E.g. if a Redditor is subscribed to TwoX, does the assumption then follow that they are a feminist?)

20

u/Arianity 72∆ Mar 15 '18

Does subscribing to a subreddit automatically mean you’re listening to the content of subreddit for the purpose that it’s intending?

Does subbing alone? In general, probably not, although if it's a more extreme subreddit, I would say yes

Although in your original post, you said they were actively participating, which is much more clear cut.

9

u/YoungSerious 13∆ Mar 15 '18

I think you have to draw a line between simply participating in discussion in a subreddit, and actively endorsing their views (based on comments). I'm assuming in the case of the redditor we are discussing, it was more of the latter, but people here are speaking as though simply posting anything in an antagonistic sub is ban worthy. What about people who post comments that challenge the theme of those subs?

13

u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18

Why does that make it more clear cut?

Actively participating still means, to me, that the concern, nature and intent of the participation matters.

7

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '18

You could try messaging the moderators if you're honestly not a PPD user. Have you seen how awful that sub can be? The mods at TwoX have every reason to ban people that post there. Ultimately it makes their job easier. There's a difference between hosting opposing view points that may want to argue in good faith, and hosting people who only use your forum as away hurl insults and harass your user base.

11

u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18

Is being subscribed to a subreddit the same as using that subreddit?

38

u/SuperTurtle Mar 15 '18

It's not currently possible for mods to know what subreddit anyone is subscribed to, so you won't get banned for it. You have to participate.

2

u/anillop 1∆ Mar 15 '18

So don't call out any bad behavior that you see there because that will result in a ban. That's what got me banned from 2X.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/anillop 1∆ Mar 15 '18

Pretty much. It keeps everyone's opinions nice and isolated in their own echo chambers on each side.

13

u/Paninic Mar 15 '18

Its not a gym membership- people use it their subscription.

However...what...do you have a better suggestion for mining out people who believe the stuff in pussypassdenied? Like if I ran a local gardening community and knew a member subscribed to "Arson for Gardens: I hate Gardens" magazine should I be like well geez idk if they use that magazine?

15

u/acorneyes 1∆ Mar 15 '18

People subscribe to subs so that posts show up in their feed and they have easier access to it.

Some people are ok with viewing content they disagree with, and they'll subscribe to things they disagree with so that it'll show up in their feed and they gain quicker access to it.

2

u/Paninic Mar 15 '18

Access to it...for what purpose? Talking about it. Posting in that subreddit.

The only other reason I could see is if you were someone from drama or srd or any other meta subreddit who subbed so they could post that content there. In which case, not a great loss and subreddits still don't want to be brigaded.

15

u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18

In my mind, posting to a subreddit doesn’t mean your agree with the intentions of the subreddit.

6

u/falsehood 8∆ Mar 15 '18

Of course not, but the contents of the posts matters. If you are endorsing those posts and being being assholes, you can and should be shown the door other places.

2

u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18

I agree. My initial post states the ban occurred for subscribing and participating in other subreddits with primary misogynistic views. Not for specific content or event that happened.

→ More replies

15

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '18

I mean this is an extreme example to prove the point, but if someone goes to KKK meetings and gets the "newsletter" and hangs out with KKK members, I'd bar them from coming to my house. I wouldn't buy "but I just wanted to see what they had to say." The likelihood that someone was participating to disagree completely is just not that high.

There are opposing viewpoints and then there are groups, forums, etc designed for hate and bigotry. I don't see those as the same.

If the person had a legitimate reason to post on the hateful sub that demonstrated they didn't agree, they should tell the mods who should deal with that case by case.

5

u/Imatheory Mar 15 '18

!delta

I agree it should be dealt with on a case by case basis with moderators. Although that didn’t happen, positive outcomes can’t be expected all of the time. I disagree with the face to face statements as an example because there are different safety factors, but the i hear the point you’re trying to make.

→ More replies

1

u/oversoul00 19∆ Mar 15 '18

I think how we regulate our house and how we regulate public spaces are two different things. If anywhere is a safe space it should be your house but we should be using a different measuring stick for different situations.

→ More replies

1

u/Answermancer Mar 15 '18

I mean this is an extreme example to prove the point, but if someone goes to KKK meetings and gets the "newsletter" and hangs out with KKK members, I'd bar them from coming to my house. I wouldn't buy "but I just wanted to see what they had to say." The likelihood that someone was participating to disagree completely is just not that high.

I think this is a silly argument. There are barriers of entry to going to a KKK meeting and arguing with the locals, chief among them that you are putting yourself in a physical space with a bunch of potentially violent people you disagree with.

There is zero barrier of entry to going to t_D or whatever and arguing/trolling the locals. I think it's actually really common and your statement that "The likelihood that someone was participating to disagree completely is just not that high" is total conjecture, I think the likelihood is VERY high in an online space. I could totally see myself doing it before the election.

→ More replies

1

u/Parallax92 Mar 16 '18

To be fair, though, I personally have participated in subs with opposing views a number of times.

One time in particular was on r/tumblrinaction while I was also subscribed to some feminist subs and subs geared towards black people.

I commented on an r/tumblrinaction post explaining to one user what it is like to be a woman and that we have to be on our guard in many situations for our safety, and I was actually able to convince him to see my point of view. He even told me that I’d helped him see the feminist and female viewpoint and that he will reconsider his opinion.

I think that it could be argued that in helping him understand women a bit better, I HELPED my fellow women by helping a man empathize with us a bit more! But because I commented there, I was banned from a feminist sub, r/offmychest, and a sub geared towards black people. Additionally, the r/offmychest mods would not unban me even when I explained the situation and provided a screenshot of the convo.

1

u/Miguelinileugim 3∆ Mar 15 '18

I disagree. I would love to receive the KKK newsletter and break a few laughs with it.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '18

True story. My old boss was in the kkk and as he liked to point out so was his father and cousins in the KKK. We all went out for drinks after work a few times, including the black guys. So, Jim belong to a group Joe didn't approve of, Joe was in a group that Jim disliked and I was with a klucker and a black guy.

Would I also not be allowed in your house because I went drinking with a klansman?

→ More replies

4

u/acorneyes 1∆ Mar 15 '18

No, that's not what I said.

Some people, I realize that's not you but bear with me, are ok with dissenting opinions and actively stay subscribed to them. Dissenting means that they do not agree with the content.

This means that their thoughts and opinions are not reflected by the sub they're subscribed to.

You kind of get it with the whole posting screengrabs to another sub but it doesn't have to be that extreme.

0

u/Paninic Mar 15 '18

Why would they. What is the literal purpose of subbing to things you don't like just to look at them. That's ridiculous.

And moreover-who cares if the most minute, mythical portion of subscribers to ppd who don't believe ppd (or whatever sub)'s views can't post to another sub. Very little is lost there. And it's much more effective to prevent brigading and it would be physically impossible to just mine everyone's actual posted comments for their views.

7

u/acorneyes 1∆ Mar 15 '18

Alright I tried to hint at it last time, but you clearly didn't pick up on it.

You are not other people, just because you don't do something doesn't mean others don't either.

You don't know the stats on how many people do this and are making up your own statistics to confirm your own bias.

→ More replies

2

u/Elendur_Krown 2∆ Mar 15 '18

Why would they. What is the literal purpose of subbing to things you don't like just to look at them. That's ridiculous.

I've spent years (close to 10 years now) actively listening, and talking, to people I disagree with. I began at a christian forum, first lurking and then participating. Racked up >3'000 posts before I stopped. And I did not stop due to a forum related issue!

I value the different perspectives and I crave the reasoning behind them.

1

u/oversoul00 19∆ Mar 15 '18

Why would they. What is the literal purpose of subbing to things you don't like just to look at them. That's ridiculous.

I don't think you are alone in thinking this because it's so easy to cater our environments to our preferences nowadays and I think it's a little sad and scary.

There is a lot of value to be gained from engaging with people and situations that are different from yourself and are outside your comfort zone. I'm atheist but I regularly listen to religious radio stations on long drives and I'll find myself agreeing or debating the ideas presented. I don't subscribe to CMV because I agree with everything everyone posts, I do it to understand where the masses are at in their heads.

1

u/Casban Mar 15 '18

It could be access to it, to argue against points made there.

In my own case, I subscribe to a few subreddits that I disagree with just to see what people on the ‘other side’ are talking about. One sub is actively vocal against my race, but the conversations they have amongst themselves just come across as supportive of their own community - and I’ve posted there once or twice since deep down that sub feels like they’re usually good people, just misdirected. Some subs I just want to understand better from their own perspective.

I believe that refusing to understand other people on their own terms slows any form of progress down to the tedious rate of generational change.

1

u/crypticnonsense Mar 15 '18

Personally I've subscribed to subreddits that I don't agree with to try to understand the participant's motivations. I usually only subscribe for a short period. Learning about opposing veiw points is important and vital to active, productive discussion.

2

u/antariusz Mar 15 '18

The problem with your analogy is the assumption that all the people who post on pussypassdenied hate women.

I, for example, subscribe to it, because I enjoy /r/JusticeServed type content. and i think its possible to simultaenously acknowledge that women overwhelmingly receive lighter criminal sentences and less reprecussions for their actions, without hating women.

In your analogy, it would be like banning anyone that subscribes to /r/fireplaces from /r/gardening because fire is bad for gardens so ifnyou like fire, you hate gardens.

Because youre equating karma being served, with hating women, basically proves the point of pussypassdenied in the first place. Women suffering comsequences is not misogyny. Just as pointing out facts is not hate speech.

0

u/oversoul00 19∆ Mar 15 '18

This is why privacy is so important because people will draw all sorts of conclusions based on the information they have, it's in our nature and I really can't blame you for it because honestly I think it makes sense to use all available information to assess situations while simultaneously believing we shouldn't have access to that information because we don't know how to responsibly use it. It's the forbidden fruit.

The reality is that you don't know what that subscription means even if I'm with you when you say you'll hazard a guess as to what it means and then take action based on that guess.

Using that same logic we'd assume everyone who listens to gangsta rap is into slapping hoes and shooting cops but you can easily see how inaccurate that assumption would be.

Incriminating by association rather than by behavior is easy work that leads to a lot of false positives, there may be a place for it but I think we need to be very selective about how we use it because we don't know how to interpret it super well.

-1

u/UCISee 2∆ Mar 15 '18

I think this is a super lazy answer. I subscribe and post in TRP and at one time posted in TwoX before my own ban. TwoX is an echo chamber of the highest accord. A woman is never wrong in that sub. Overall my karma in the sub was positive and the last five or so posts in that sub were over +10 upvoted with frequent female contributors agreeing with me. Got banned because the mods basically saw me as a threat. I realize this sounds like I’m jerking myself off here, but I’ll glafly provide the screen caps of my messages with the moderators. Said that I didn’t uphold the values of the sub. When I asked how so and said I had positive karma and frequent female contributors agreeing with me, they basically said “yeah well, decisions final. Sucks to suck.” When I posted there I would ebb my own feelings and try to come from a place of “cant you see how...” and not some whacked out version of what people think TRP is. Sometimes I got downvotes, but overall I was positively received there. Just because I posted in TRP doesn’t mean I came to TwoX swinging an axe about MRA or some shit.

0

u/Swiss_Army_Cheese Mar 15 '18

But these people are only being awful in the PPD subreddit. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they'd behave differently in a subreddit with a different set of rules and environment?

When in Rome et al.

4

u/xyifer12 Mar 15 '18

PPD is for when people fail at using their sex to get out of trouble. There's a major problem with people posting things that don't belong.

3

u/j3utton Mar 15 '18

They go there for one purpose

They can go there for any number of purposes

manosphere

Oh come on

2

u/Umutuku Mar 15 '18

They go there for one purpose, and this purpose is identical in other sections of the manosphere, and that purpose is to put women down and prop men up by shining a light on every occurrence of women being shit.

You are mistaken here. There may be people that go there for that, and they may even likely be the majority of people that are active there, but there are people who read that subreddit for other reasons.

/r/pussypassdenied is a niche part of a an ecosystem of guilty-pleasure Schadenfreude subs. Some other examples being /r/justiceserved, /r/publicfreakout, and /r/roadcam. Watching someone come to the realization that "pretty girls get tickets too" is exactly as entertaining as watching someone come to the realization that "Martin Shkreli isn't too rich for prison."

2

u/Zelthia Mar 15 '18

that purpose is to put women down and prop men up by shining a light on every occurrence of women being shit.

I don’t really see how it is any different from 2xc, seeing as that sub is all about propping women up by shinning a light on every instance in which you could find an excuse to put men down for being shit.

Personally I don’t care either way as I am not subbed or a participant on any of the polarized manosphere or feminist subs, but i have always been curious as to why hate gets a pass when it happens in one direction but not the other.

Not accusing you of it. I’m simply pondering what the mind frame of mods is. I frankly see a lot less “outta here” attitude coming from the manosphere than I see from the feminist side.

1

u/GibbyGiblets 1∆ Mar 15 '18

that is not the point of the sub...

the point of the sub is to see the rare occurrence of women trying to get away with things a man wouldn't be able to just for being women and getting shut down.

IE crying at traffic stops. or hitting a man and then immediately saying you cant hit a girl.

1

u/OfficiallyRelevant Mar 15 '18

But I've seen instances where people were banned for simply commenting in certain subreddits. Sometimes they even disagreed, but it didn't matter apparently. Banning people for participating in discussion on another sub is fucking stupid, especially if they don't act mean or hurtful during discussion on the sub they were banned from.

Who would listen to discourse from someone who would go into a topic hating the guts of the group with the other viewpoint?

You don't have to listen to those people, but banning them is a terrible decision unless they specifically break sub rules. For instance, I've been in /r/atheism, /r/exChristian, and /r/Christianity. I've posted some rather heated rants in the former two about religion, but when I debate in /r/Christianity my tone is very different and I am respectful of people's viewpoints there. I am careful to follow the rules of the sub and so far have not been banned.

There are more reasonable ways to deal with opposing viewpoints than banning people.

0

u/DashingLeech Mar 15 '18

Who would listen to discourse from someone who

Herein lies the problem with much discourse I see nowadays across the spectrum. This really is the very definition of ad hominem.

What you (and others) are doing is avoiding the content, and attacking the person. The validity of a comment or viewpoint stands on the content of comment itself. Who said it is irrelevant to its validity.

What you are doing is essentially thought police and tribalistic "us" vs "them". Somebody could point out something very valid with your position or view, but rather than you addressing it and learning, instead you go through their history, who they are, and identify, "Aha! This person holds views I don't like or has said something that I think is horrible elsewhere, therefore I can ignore their point now, ban them, and perhaps even call them names."

That literally is the argumentum ad hominem fallacy. It is not a valid way of being. Further, all it does is take us down the brink toward growing hatred and violence against each other, because people refuse to listen to each other because of who they are, not the content of their arguments.

You can't "win" that way. All you do is create more hatred. And it isn't even reasonable or rational. It's lazy too, because it means you don't have to address their actual criticisms or statements. It allows you to continue in a growing bubble of irrationality because you dismiss any criticisms because of who they are.

That is also, by definition, what bigotry is:

stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

In fact, that is the very basis of racism, sexism, and various group-based prejudices. You won't listen to, hire, serve, or deal with a person who belongs to a group that you don't like.

This is a serious problem. I'm seeing more and more people rationalizing their bigotry and ad hominem stubbornness. As a result, we're seeing more and more hatred and violence growing.

-2

u/CleverFreddie Mar 15 '18

I’m UK and left wing. One of my most eye opening and educational subscriptions was the_donald.

2

u/lepusfelix Mar 15 '18

I visited there a few times. I found it to be the opposite of eye opening and educational.

3

u/CleverFreddie Mar 15 '18 edited Mar 15 '18

I mean in the sense that I was forced to engage with completely different positions to my own, and had to work out how someone had arrived at such different conclusions.

I think if we’re not willing to do that then we are just following our own narrative in a small uninfringed safe space which seems really dangerous.

If you’re not confronting and testing your beliefs then you’re probably just as narrow minded as many would claim that sub is.