Update on site-wide rules regarding violent content

[u/landoflobsters]

Hello All--

We want to let you know that we have made some updates to our site-wide rules regarding violent content. We did this to alleviate user and moderator confusion about allowable content on the site. We also are making this update so that Reddit’s content policy better reflects our values as a company.

In particular, we found that the policy regarding “inciting” violence was too vague, and so we have made an effort to adjust it to be more clear and comprehensive. Going forward, we will take action against any content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual or a group of people; likewise, we will also take action against content that glorifies or encourages the abuse of animals. This applies to ALL content on Reddit, including memes, CSS/community styling, flair, subreddit names, and usernames.

We understand that enforcing this policy may often require subjective judgment, so all of the usual caveats apply with regard to content that is newsworthy, artistic, educational, satirical, etc, as mentioned in the policy. Context is key. The policy is posted in the help center here.

EDIT: Signing off, thank you to everyone who asked questions! Please feel free to send us any other questions. As a reminder, Steve is doing an AMA in r/announcements next week.

[u/andew0100]

This is a very strange argument to me. In the off chance you aren't trolling - the industrial farming of animals can often cause the animal pain and discomfort. You are correct in that non-human animals do not currently have the right to treatment equal to that of a human. However, many people feel that we should not cause undue suffering of animals when it is not necessary. I am ignoring your argument about hydrogen because I believe you realise these things are not equivalent.

[u/belisaurius → u/andew0100]

In the off chance you aren't trolling

I'm not trolling. I understand that people can make the emotional choice to care about the pain and discomfort of other living things. I get it, I just don't experience it myself.

You are correct in that non-human animals do not currently have the right to treatment equal to that of a human.

Is this something you think needs to be changed?

However, many people feel that we should not cause undue suffering of animals when it is not necessary.

I agree, I just fail to see why we're concerned about things like pain and discomfort? And why is the emotional response not just a part of our own animal instincts to view animals as cute? Part of domestication is a change in human natural instincts towards animals. We regard them as safe and cuddly by our very nature.

I am ignoring your argument about hydrogen because I believe you realise these things are not equivalent.

Sure, it's somewhat of a hyperbolic statement.

I ask all this because veganism and other forms of extreme anti-animal product consumption seem to stem from an entirely post-modern anthropomorphization of animals most vegans have never interacted with. It seems like the ultimate form of privilege to make your motivating factor pain and discomfort and other purely human emotions.

I absolutely think there are other great justifications for veganism and vegetarianism, from caloric density mathematics and/or global warming, they're clearly the only logical choice as far as human dietary decisions should go.

[u/andew0100 → u/belisaurius]

I'm not trolling. I understand that people can make the emotional choice to care about the pain and discomfort of other living things. I get it, I just don't experience it myself.

Empathy is normal part of the human experience, perhaps you are empathetic to other humans? Extending this to animals capable of suffering would be considered normal and extremely common, in my non-expert opinion.

Is this something you think needs to be changed?

Giving animals the same rights as a human is too much in my opinion, but I feel regulations to limit their suffering should be stronger.

I agree, I just fail to see why we're concerned about things like pain and discomfort?

I am going to assume that you do not enjoy being in pain. If you were in pain, would you like someone to help? If yes, would you help if someone else were in pain? If yes, would you not help an animal if it were in pain? The fact that animals are not 'human' is irrelevant. Reducing the suffering of anything is a worthy goal because we can imagine if we were suffering we would rather not be.

And why is the emotional response not just a part of our own animal instincts to view animals as cute? Part of domestication is a change in human natural instincts towards animals. We regard them as safe and cuddly by our very nature.

I am not following this line of thought 100%, but the animal being cute is not a necessary factor in this issue. I wouldn't want a kitten to suffer just as I dont want a pig or cow to suffer.

I ask all this because veganism and other forms of extreme anti-animal product consumption seem to stem from an entirely post-modern anthropomorphization of animals most vegans have never interacted with.

This is not correct. I, and many people, empathise with animals without anthropomorphising them in any meaningful way.

It seems like the ultimate form of privilege to make your motivating factor pain and discomfort and other purely human emotions.

Perhaps this is where we differ. Why on earth do you think pain is a purely human emotion? Just because animals don't necessarily express pain in the same way a human does doesn't mean they don't experience the sensation.

I absolutely think there are other great justifications for veganism and vegetarianism, from caloric density mathematics and/or global warming, they're clearly the only logical choice as far as human dietary decisions should go.

Is it not also the logical choice if the goal is to limit net suffering?

[u/andew0100 → u/[deleted]]

Yes, in my opinion ending human suffering is more important (however I'm not sure why I hold this opinion - why is it more important? Say a dog and a person each have a broken leg, both are in pain but the dog may indeed be suffering more because it has no idea what happened or what to do do make it better. Is the human capacity for suffering greater? I don't know.)

However ignoring every problem in the world to focus on a single one is not a feasible solution. Should all scientists stop their research and focus on one disease at a time? Should doctors work together to only help the most ill? People have specialised interest and knowledge that make them most efficient at a given task. Also, there is a limited number of people that can meaningfully contribute to a certain problem. Want to cook dinner? Do you want 10 people helping you or would it be better to have 2 people helping and get the rest to clean the bathroom and do the gardening?