Rule on civility?
Rule on civility?
While the [email protected] community has always been a little feisty, the flood of Redditors has turned much of any contentious subject into pure mud slinging. Take the recent post "Ukraine war: Kyiv claims its first victories of counter-offensive". The discussion featured these insults:
- cia and nafo freaks
- I don’t think the person you’re responding to has the capacity to realize anything except their own delusions
- hasn’t achieved reading comprehension
- tankie
- fascist
- gargling Putin's cock
- weasels
- So I sincerely ask you to either become a better person or just stfu.
- loonies
- Russian dick train
- willfully obtuse
And that's just half of the page. Seems like it's time to have at least some basic civility rules in place before this community is nothing but personal attacks.
On one hand, sure we could all do with some rules on civility.
However, people who support Russian claim to Ukrainian territory (not those that support and end to suffering, there's some nuance there) are, to me, despicable. In the same vein that we must not tolerate intolerance, I don't see that position as a viable position to take.
I'm all for vitriol when pointed at a handful of pre-selected targets. You can hate nazis, you can hate pro-russian pundits, and you can hate the guy who sold Ea-Nasir that bad quality copper in 1750 b.c.
and you can hate the guy who sold Ea-Nasir that bad quality copper in 1750 b.c.
I mean just, don't even get me started.
This is what the voting system is for .. upvoted comments become more visible. Downvoted comments disappear. The war inflames people in both sides .. yesterday a Russian missile killed 11 civilians. So it's understandable people will react like this. But I'd far prefer reading these kinds of comments than have some kind of behavior code. If they introduced that in a forum I'd be out very quickly.
While it's understandable, that doesn't mean that it's productive. It also doesn't mean that people can't at least minimally restrain themselves.
It also doesn't mean that a small group of bot accounts or smurfs or anything else can change the votes in their favor and change the tide of what people think is the zeitgeist.
I've already seen it here where upvoted comments become randomly heavily downvoted for stating something against China or russias policies, while whataboutisms are suddenly upvoted in exchange.
I completely agree that insults like this are "pure mud slinging". As I said elsewhere, I know reddit was basically a rage-engine, generating and thriving on rage, but that's not real discussion. That's "engagement" in the most cynical sense. Real engagement is discussion, back and forth, even with (especially with) disagreements.
I just saw a thread where one person's "contribution" was literally nothing other than trying to combine the same 5 words into different insults in response to reasonable comments. There's a difference between ending your evidence-backed reasoned comment with an insult or derogatory remark, and having the entire content of all of your comments be personal attacks or insults.
I'm unsure how I feel about making a rule around such a thing, because the mere presence of insults is not always enough to declare the comment(er) detracting; when the entirety of someone's comment history is just that, then things become more clear-cut.
I don't want an echo chamber. I want to see dissenting opinions. But I want those dissenting opinions to be in good faith, and not backed by aggression. I don't want to see the content of people whose sole intent is to cause outrage and troll.
If you can't call an asshole and asshole, then what's the point of it all? Is everyone supposed to act like both sides are equal and there aren't objectively bad actors?
People are perfectly capable of calling out bad behavior without vapid insults.
that's a reason why duplicate a community with same name can be usefull : if [email protected] is not your taste, you can switch to worldnews@instanceX