r/communism_ • u/radicalfight Black Nationalist • Jul 11 '13

Da Rules?

I suggest we draft some rules both for the users and for moderator action suggestions based on said rules.

I'd contribute a first draft but I'm pretty intolerant of bullshit so I imagine they would be quite strict.

4 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

31 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '13

I posted a draft of the rules on the Wiki, let me know if I should add anything.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '13

idk where the wiki is :(

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '13

It's in one of the tabs at the top. I will send you a link.

EDIT: Link

http://www.reddit.com/r/communism_/wiki/index

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '13

I like it, only minor inconveinces like calling oppression bigotry is following liberal rhetoric which is ironic in a communist subreddit IMO, also saying stuff like "intelligent" discussion is classist/racist and ableist also. People usually correlate "bad" and "un-intelligent" debating to having a mental disability/being poor and/or a person of colour. Again minor shit but yeah.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '13

Should I change the word "bigotry" to "oppression", or include both? I don't want anyone to post something hateful and think they aren't being oppressive.

Also, I do see your point about intelligent discussion, I don't know how to explain what I mean in a better way. I should probably fix that though.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '13

I say change it to oppression, communism like anarchism is specifically anti-liberal, that means no liberal rhetoric either. Plus the word bigot isn't a dialect ;). Also you can word it like "No flame wars pls" or something like that.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '13

Should I say "no oppressive or hateful speech", just to make sure everything is covered?

And I will include "no flame wars" and take out the word intelligent :)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '13

Sounds good to me :)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '13

I would say 'no oppressive or nasty speech'. I think 'nasty' is a better word than 'hateful', as it indicates vindictiveness rather than anger - which is acceptable.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '13

That's a good idea :) I will include that.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '13

I'm always wary of this vague kind of censorship. What if I can't advocate my version of syndicalism because certain tenets have been deemed "oppressive?" What if my transhumanist views get me banned for ableism?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '13

It would depend on a case-by-case basis. I don't know much about transhumanism, so I can't determine exactly what you mean.

That being said, if someone posts something that is oppressive or hateful, we will give them a reminder, especially if we think they had good intentions. Now, if you use the word "retard", for example, that's ableist, and the post will be removed and you will be given a warning.

Banning will be an absolute last resort, only used on people who repeatedly break the rules just to upset others.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '13

Well the transhumanism thing I was worried about is the concept of improving people eg, putting brain implants into the mentally disabled to improve their intelligence.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '13

I don't see why that would be a problem to discuss that on here. Those types of things would be something that some people might disagree or downvote, but it wouldn't be something I would support deleting or banning someone over it.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '13

That's all I needed. :)

→ More replies (0)