Converse
When I first created an account on Reddit, I did so in hopes I would be able to have civil adult conversations about the "Big Four" (sex, money, religion, and politics). I have had some success during the short period I have been frequenting, "The Front Page of the Internet". However, not nearly as much as I originally hoped for.
One of the concepts in use that I believe stifles having conversations on Reddit is the requirement of citations in posts.
I understand this is recoil from the fight against, "Fake News". Moderators may not have the time to look over every written word to cross check it for validity, so why not require citations to combat the problem?
In short, it eliminates the possibility for any and all opinions that are based on facts.
The scenario where I experienced this problem went something like this. An interview Bloomberg Politics conducted with former US Ambassador to Russia, Mr. Thomas Pickering, was posted to a subreddit.
I watched the interview and posted the following statement;
"I only took issue with one statement Mr. Pickering made. When he said that the US wasn't interested in a conflict, I thought about all of the things that have been done in direct to not fully believe that claim.
EDIT: preparation > prepare
Remember, this interview took place before the US had, in fact, placed sanctions on Russia.
Looking back at this statement, I shouldn't have said "war". I should have said military conflict or interest in taking further action(s).
Even with the mentioned oversight, I feel the overall statement is on point and something I still agree with today.
The comment is currently the highest rated by Reddit's karma system and started an interesting conversation about foreign sanctions, war, and America's current overall position amongst foreign interests.
Then the comments started to get "controversial". They received as many upvotes as downvotes and were marked with a red cross to "alert" other Redditors of their nature.
The main reason they were controversial, was because I stated my belief that America has a fascination with being the "World's Tactical Police Force".
We have a large military and seem to love using it, no matter how much opposition there may be. I believe it and so do many others. How could anyone possibly make citations for this opinion, though?
Only after the comments became controversial, some were removed as a result of not having citations.
At one point, a Redditor asked for a citation in regards to the Invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the protests that were held before and after in response to this action. Which, I legitimately believed was a joke.
I would have appreciated a window of time to correct any issues with my statements, citations included, but of course, Reddit had already taken their actions and therefore rendered the conversation as something that never should have occurred in the first place.
Typical Reddit moderation protocol, shoot first and ask questions later.
I understand I said some things Redditors might not agree with on an ideological level, that doesn't make them false. Citations are not a stamp of approval in agreement, they're to provide backstory and/or information to speed up the process of validating one's claim(s).
When a Redditor is looking to make comments and reply to other's comments, we should be given the chance to have a civil adult conversation and not have to look forward to preparing for a large scale debate, complete with moderators.
I won't mention the subreddit but, the name does not match with their ultimate objective. They should either look into changing the subreddit's name or change the way Redditor's are allowed to interact while visiting their subreddit.
As my search continues for civil adult conversations within Reddit, the irony only increases. A story I'll tell at a later time.
One of the concepts in use that I believe stifles having conversations on Reddit is the requirement of citations in posts.
I understand this is recoil from the fight against, "Fake News". Moderators may not have the time to look over every written word to cross check it for validity, so why not require citations to combat the problem?
In short, it eliminates the possibility for any and all opinions that are based on facts.
The scenario where I experienced this problem went something like this. An interview Bloomberg Politics conducted with former US Ambassador to Russia, Mr. Thomas Pickering, was posted to a subreddit.
I watched the interview and posted the following statement;
"I only took issue with one statement Mr. Pickering made. When he said that the US wasn't interested in a conflict, I thought about all of the things that have been done in direct to not fully believe that claim.
The raising of military wages, the increases in the military budget, the approved manufacturing of additional aircraft carriers, and even the ban on transgender people in the military are all things that point to prepare for an incoming war.
I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone in thinking that America was facing an impending conflict ever since there was speculation about Russia's election hacking."EDIT: preparation > prepare
Remember, this interview took place before the US had, in fact, placed sanctions on Russia.
Looking back at this statement, I shouldn't have said "war". I should have said military conflict or interest in taking further action(s).
Even with the mentioned oversight, I feel the overall statement is on point and something I still agree with today.
The comment is currently the highest rated by Reddit's karma system and started an interesting conversation about foreign sanctions, war, and America's current overall position amongst foreign interests.
Then the comments started to get "controversial". They received as many upvotes as downvotes and were marked with a red cross to "alert" other Redditors of their nature.
The main reason they were controversial, was because I stated my belief that America has a fascination with being the "World's Tactical Police Force".
We have a large military and seem to love using it, no matter how much opposition there may be. I believe it and so do many others. How could anyone possibly make citations for this opinion, though?
Only after the comments became controversial, some were removed as a result of not having citations.
At one point, a Redditor asked for a citation in regards to the Invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the protests that were held before and after in response to this action. Which, I legitimately believed was a joke.
I would have appreciated a window of time to correct any issues with my statements, citations included, but of course, Reddit had already taken their actions and therefore rendered the conversation as something that never should have occurred in the first place.
Typical Reddit moderation protocol, shoot first and ask questions later.
I understand I said some things Redditors might not agree with on an ideological level, that doesn't make them false. Citations are not a stamp of approval in agreement, they're to provide backstory and/or information to speed up the process of validating one's claim(s).
When a Redditor is looking to make comments and reply to other's comments, we should be given the chance to have a civil adult conversation and not have to look forward to preparing for a large scale debate, complete with moderators.
I won't mention the subreddit but, the name does not match with their ultimate objective. They should either look into changing the subreddit's name or change the way Redditor's are allowed to interact while visiting their subreddit.
As my search continues for civil adult conversations within Reddit, the irony only increases. A story I'll tell at a later time.
Comments
Post a Comment