Reminder about the rules. There seems to be a lot of confusion.

AnnArchist · 2012-09-30T18:12:56+00:00

Overview of Mod Policy: No memes or rage comics. No linking to SRS or affiliated subs. Young accounts are given no tolerance. Spam/Off-Topic posts will be...

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Collective82 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mysteries_of_magnets 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ErasmusMRA 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ErasmusMRA 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]disquietly 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist[S] 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]disquietly 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist[S] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]disquietly 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I can see your point, and if I look at it from the mods perspective, it makes a lot of sense - the amount this subreddit gets trolled, you have to be strict. I just don't want new redditors voices to be silenced purely because they're new.

Obviously that's at your discretion and as far as I can tell, you guys have been doing a great job - I'm just worried that new members of the community might be pushed out because their questions are seen as troll-ish or reposts when they're just new to reddit and need real advice.

It's a tough line to walk, with a community as volatile as this, but please bear in mind that being new doesn't necessarily mean that someone's a troll - my whole problem with the original post was that it didn't specify that a "new account" was one that was a troll - it made it seem as though all new accounts were not welcome, which is clearly not the case.

There are new users who sign up just to get advice and I'd rather report a hundred trolls than let one man who needed help go without.

[–]ignatiusloyola 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]truthman2000 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Based on the mods' previous actions this rule appears to be utilized to censor views they disagree with from newcomer MRAs, in an effort to force their personal political ideology (radical Leftism) on the userbase. The "off-topic" category is used in much the same way.

There's not much point in discussing it with them, as they do not listen to user input whatsoever, though as you've seen they are happy to pretend like they do, without budging an inch. They supposedly know better than actual MRAs, yet none of them are men's rights activists, just kids who took control of the sub-reddit and made it their personal playground. They care primarily about maintaining strict control on what MRAs are allowed to discuss here and ensuring that MRAs who do not adhere to their political ideology are harassed, censored, banned, or forced to leave.

[–]dumbguyscene28 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Collective82 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]dumbguyscene28 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Collective82 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mayonesa 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mayonesa 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

[–]sltkr 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrStonedOne 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]mayonesa 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hamakua 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]mayonesa 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]mayonesa 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]mayonesa 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]mayonesa 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mayonesa 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mayonesa 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mayonesa 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]MechPlasma 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tractorcow 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FireTruth 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Whisper 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rightsbot 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AryoBarzan 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]truthman2000 -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]truthman2000 -8 points-7 points-6 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]southernasshole 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

As you obviously aren't up to date with the truthman drama, I'll fill you in. Truthman routinely attacks, well, everyone here. Gay people; women; small men; people who don't agree with him; liberals; conservatives. He basically just attacks everyone, constantly. My guess is the comment by southernasshole is due to truthman's incessant attacks on the community in general. The upvotes indicate the exasperation of other users. Telling people to hang themselves is not an attitude I'd like to foster, but I can certainly understand where the frustration is coming from. Bear in mind southernasshole is gay, and truthman's stance on equality is telling SA he's basically worth less than other people because of that. That's a rather offensive position to take.

I invite you to have a read through truthman's comment history. Pay particular attention to disagreements he has. His M.O. involves 1. attacking a user's personality over something he disagrees with. 2. When user rebuts (usually logically, and decisively), truthman uses another ad hominem, or attempts to shift the frame. Repeat ad nauseum. He is also known as "Jeremiah", who has been trolling this subreddit for some time. He would have been banned by now, but some of the conservative members prefer to allow trolls in the community under the notion that free speech is preferable.

[–]Mitschu 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I've been keeping an eye open for far longer than I've had a reddit account. The general issue, which I called out in my original reply, is that matches between Jeremiah and others inevitably devolves into ad-hominem shouting matches.

The general pattern I've seen is: truth makes a claim, someone attacks him, he attacks back, the water gets muddied, feelings get hurt, accusations of trolldom go flying everywhere, ...

I don't care about politics, except for the fact that they detract from my ability to assimilate new information. I only care about burden of proof, which is passed on once an opponent accepts a stance as legitimate. No calling no-keepsies, accepting an argument as valid and then later using "it's an invalid argument" as a defense against it.

This ties in to why ad-hominems are so damned effective, by the way. You accept, and in accepting legitimatize, a personal attack, you take responsibility for refuting it. You point out that a claim is illegitimate, you make them take responsibility for proving it.

Which is why when truth makes a claim, and the best shot against him is "Nuh uh, that's wrong, and you have a history of 'that's wrongness'." I research it myself. And sometimes, he is wrong. Sometimes, he is right. Nobody is benefited by baseless statements or baseless accusations.

I'm halfway bisexual myself, a short fellow with average build, I disagree with him regularly enough, I'm independent with conservative leanings, and more. None of that matters. Let him attack me or my demographic, it's not personal, it's political. I can extricate myself from my argument, and not have a personal investment in winning. If his stance is correct, I'll accept it as correct, even if it attacks me.

If he's an asshole, great for him. Why are you letting that dictate your responses?

Don't rationalize, please. South generalized (something truth is regularly called out for) and made a plea for violence. And then had the gall to post that in a thread about rules against inciting violence. This isn't like Factory2's recent debacle, where he made a tame contextual metaphor and was banned for it from one of our sister subs; this is an actual call for violent action; go kill yourself (or find someone to kill you.)

And the message being sent is "If we don't like you, the rules don't apply." Hardly an appropriate attitude for an equal rights sub to have, creating a class divide and attributing special rights and privileges to "in" groups.

You say South is gay, and it's offensive to tell him he's worth less than others.

In the same breath... you imply that since Truth is inflammatory, it's not offensive to tell him he's worth less than others.

Reading through truth's comment history, I see a few opinions and conjectures, suggestions to other members, references to Sex & Culture, a chain of respectful back and forth discussion that ended with mutual disagreement, references to Paul Elam's views and opinions, semantic quibbling, a call to take action instead of slacktion, open criticism of the moderators...

I see a contributing member of MensRights. Even if he's inflammatory in his contributions, and doesn't always back his claims up, he inspires conversation, disagreement, and perspective consideration.

Besides, arguing wrong does not make your argument wrong.

Hell, even if he were absolutely 100% wrong all of the time, that's still contributing because it opens up an avenue of correction for all to read.

The entire last paragraph is a character assassination attempt; again, he is not always wrong, and referencing instances of him being wrong in the past has no relevance to his accuracy now, in the present arguments he has. Debate is Tabula Rosa, blank slates. It never matters who is making an argument, I could copy + paste his words verbatim as my own and it wouldn't change the nature of the argument a whit. What matters is the merit of the argument itself.

[–]truthman2000 -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Gareth trolls me a lot so I assure you he's talking about me.

I'm not even sure why people would down-vote my comment. I've said much more inflammatory (yet equally true) things than this:

Yet another indication that women are more abusive than men.

Now that women have the lion's share of the power in the home, they abuse it as men never did.

Yet the mods encourage down-voting and harassing me, so now there are a bunch of people like southernasshole down-voting all my posts. It appears now that I've even been rate-limited due either to down-votes or something the mods did.

Ah well, it just means I'll have to make another account so that my comments are evaluated based on content as they should be. Which of course is completely within the rules of Reddit.

Or is ordering people to go commit suicide / get lynched okay?

The mods have shown that if you disagree with them and their poltiical ideology, anything goes. ignatiusloyola even recently told me I "have no voice" when I complained about Gareth's continued false statements about me. Also note the lack of response by the mods to my original question here. Gareth only responded to troll me.

The problem is the mods are puerile and lack integrity, and foster an environment that invites other such users. They also push their political ideology on the sub-reddit, and open up users who aren't extreme Leftists like themselves to harassment, even censoring them and encouraging them to leave. Of course, if Reddit didn't have a significant population of equally juvenile liberals, it wouldn't be a problem. Or if we actually had moderators that were mature MRAs with integrity, it wouldn't be a problem, as such behavior would be discouraged.

It's no matter. I'm a passionate MRA, and despite the authoritarian attempts by the non-activist moderators and their cronies to silence me, I won't be censored.

[–]Mitschu 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

First point I would make regarding your issues with the mods - regardless of whether or not it's true, there's no point in bringing it up; or rather, the point is you bringing it up.

Defamation of character ad-hominems largely work because they force the target onto the defensive, and it's much harder to defend a subjective stance than it is to make one. Attempting to defend your character is accepting that an attack on your character is legitimate, which places the burden of proof on you - and it's impossible to "prove" something subjective.

It's a two-hit punch that's very effective at what it does; it allows the offender to score a free hit, and then another when the defender attempts to refute it.

The best thing to do is point out the irrelevancy of assigning your character to your argument, and then dismiss it (not refute it, dismiss it) and carry on the argument.

Likewise, engaging in a personal attack war isn't a sound strategy, because your opponent has the fallacy of appeal to authority on their side of the subjectivity fence. Essentially; if you let a personal war erupt, you will lose whether you attack or defend.

Now, on to your claim, I admire your opponent's ability to rationalize, this is the same argument I see used to make the stance "Of course a greater percentage of women are child abusers than are men - females have greater opportunity to abuse."

It's an argument that doesn't make statistical sense, claiming that a representative percentage is determined by the set size. Averages don't work that way. There is always a margin of error, of course, and the possibility that the samples don't represent the overall community. But what they're arguing for is a +/- 20% margin of error, minimum. To wit:

30% +/- 20% of men are responsible for non-reciprocal domestic violence.

70% +/- 20% of women are responsible for non-reciprocal domestic violence.

Ergo: Men and women are equally responsible.

If they make that claim, then one could also argue with equal legitimacy that 90% of n-r DV is women, 10% men.

At that point (+ / - 20%), may as well just throw the entire set out.

Now, on to the specifics of that claim: You stated that this was proof that women were more abusive than men.

They rebutted:

Actually, it doesn't demonstrate that at all. Statistics show that most domestic violence is mutual, with one-sided violence being initiated by women about 70% of the time.

If we assume mutual to mean "equally responsible", that's 50%. Since the data shows 70% women initiation for DV, we are left with simple mathematics. Let x represent the percentage of domestic violence that is mutual, and y represent the percentage that is non-reciprocal:

(.5x + .7y) > (.5x + .3y)

This holds true in all cases except where y <= 0. Ergo, since y >= 0: Unless there are no cases of non-reciprocal domestic violence, women are more abusive than men in relationships. It is impossible to argue otherwise.

So the fact that DV is primarily mutual, even where there has been an exhaustive campaign telling men not to hit women and nothing similar telling women not to hit men might suggest that men are more abusive.

I hate to think that we live in a world where you have to get a memo not to violently assault others.

If 100% of men are aware of the laws of the country they live in, compared to 0% of women; then the conclusion is:

Men are more likely to be aware of the laws they are violating when they assault another human being, but women are still more abusive in relationships.

Somehow, I'm unable to wrap my mind around the rationalization that leads to "Because they didn't know they were violating US law, women are not as abusive."

[–]Mitschu 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]truthman2000 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Very well said regarding the situation and strategy. You summarized what's going on extremely elegantly. I probably should handle the personal attacks that way in the future.

As I like to quote, from another MRA:

The mods are behaving like women who commit DV. Their goal is to hit you enough to infuriate you, and when you lash out, to claim you're a bully. It's hilarious that for a sub that complains about passive aggression, /r/MR is ruled by it.

My efforts still result in two things: a few more people realize what's actually going on, and I'm still able to push an agenda of truth (until I'm forced to make another account due to harassment).

I'm most concerned with all the MRAs that the mods and other users harass and push away. I enjoy providing them links to the manosphere where they can learn more without being attacked by fools. It helps for them to know that we're not all insane.

True enough, I could play a smoother hand, but it's not really in my nature to play that political game. I'm stubborn that way, and I like to think that adhering to my principles will tell others that, yes, there are still men who have principles, who won't compromise, who will walk the walk, who will just tell it like it is without apologizing or sugarcoating it, out there, so that hopefully more men realize this is an option.

Furthermore, I'm just not that eloquent. Luckily there are others who are. :)

Thanks for sharing your input. I also read your addendum, FYI.

[–]Mitschu 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I think the biggest issue is burden of comprehension has been shifted almost entirely from the receiver to the deliverer. I'd go so far as to call it an "audience culture", loosely formed from a generation raised by televisions and other media.

If, for example, you were to adopt the stance "All women are whores." and someone else adopted the stance "No women are whores."

Somehow, we've gotten to the point where it's acceptable for me to just sit back and watch you both argue, and base my opinions and beliefs on who won. Obviously I don't have to take part, unless I'm yelling at the screen for whoever I'm supporting. This is what I reference when I say "Audience Culture." An attitude of passive non-involvement.

That's. Bullshit.

I fully accept the responsibility of my burden of comprehension, and don't expect either of you to decide for me how to think.

My job is to listen to both of your arguments, do independent research, and come to a conclusion of my own based off of what I find, and then join the argument with my stance until the best possible consensus is reached.

Neither of you are responsible for forming my thoughts. Neither of you are obligated to couch your beliefs in acceptable sound bites (the whole root of "tone" arguments and political correctness) to make comprehension easier for me. Your cynicism should not sway me any more than your detractors' idealism; only empiricism, does the data support the conclusion? (I can insert my own bias afterwards.)

My job, no - our job, all of us, is to argue for what we believe in, not to pitch what we believe in to others.

So, no - don't try to play a smoother hand, try to play a winning hand. The shit talking at the table doesn't matter, only who lays down the better cards.

[–]truthman2000 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Reminder about the rules. There seems to be a lot of confusion.
Author	AnnArchist
Upvotes	54
Comments	75
Date	September 30, 2012 6:12 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/10pwj5/reminder_about_the_rules_there_seems_to_be_a_lot/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/reminder-about-the-rules-there-seems-to-be-a-lot.1012369 https://theredarchive.com/post/1012369

Comments