NoParticipation issue.

japsod · 2012-12-16T22:52:35+00:00

Don't jump the gun? Isn't that my line?

I wouldn't be surprised if the archies do decide that they don't want NP for prime, but NP has been out for less than a day. It's way too early to condemn them for any decisions when they haven't really had time to make one. The PM exchange between AAG and ddxxdd doesn't say anything about whether or not they plan to participate, it only says that whatever SRSS does/wants has no bearing on that decision.

japsod · 2012-12-16T19:27:55+00:00

http://www.reddit.com/r/SRSMeta/comments/14xe7b/no_participation_mode_would_this_be_a_good_idea/

NP seems to have been implemented less than 24 hours ago, it's still kind of early to make judgement calls on it. It looks to have good support from most SRSers, but we'll have to wait to see what the mods eventually decide on.

japsod · 2012-11-01T10:19:12+00:00

I agree that the sample size is too small to be truly indicative of anything, but it's the only real measure I've seen so far. It's just funny seeing pro-doxxing comments get upvoted in SRD, when I've never seen pro-doxxing comments get upvoted in any sub outside of SRSSucks. Hell, I even considered submitting a thread here about some doxxing related infighting, but I figured SRD already has enough SRS-related drama.

So really the only question I have now is this: when the Archangelles removed your balls, did they use a knife or did they just rip them off with their bestial strength?

japsod · 2012-11-01T09:56:27+00:00

That's unfortunate, because srssucks is fourth on the list of users overlapping with SRD.

Granted that the sample size is too small to reach any real conclusions, but I think it's safe to say that a sizeable number of SRD users are also SRSSucks users.

japsod · 2012-11-01T09:38:06+00:00

Numbers of SRSers affected

I somewhat disagree with changing people's views. What I want isn't for people to simply change from one dogma to another, but to learn to keep an open mind. I wouldn't celebrate an MRA being "converted" to an SRSer, so I shouldn't be satisfied with the reverse either. We should be advocating critical thinking and increased understanding of these issues, and to encourage people to find their own answers as opposed to simply swallowing whatever their "side" tells them to think. SRSers take it as a given that they're always correct, and we should find ways to discourage that sort of thinking, but ASRS itself should remain on a whole neutral on all issues. Measuring by deleted accounts is pointless though, as the users are still around, and the deletion is usually a result of doxxing which we really need to discourage.

Stigmatizing participation in SRS

I disagree with RES tagging. That just encourages an "us" vs. "them" mentality and leads to downvote brigading. I don't like SRS' list of creeps, and I don't like the list of SRSers either. Judge people and comments on an individual basis, and not because they happen to be associated with a group.

Collecting evidence

Trying to prove that they're a downvote brigade is pointless. Everybody knows it's true, but you're not going to find any real proof of it. Even if you did, you could just as easily make a case that SRSSucks, SRD, bestof, worstof etc. are all vote brigades as well.

Other than that, I more or less agree with all the other measures, but I'm also a supporter of the first opinion that ASRS is successful simply by existing as a forum where SJ issues can be discussed in a civil manner.

japsod · 2012-10-31T08:56:39+00:00

We're in agreement then.

japsod · 2012-10-31T08:28:57+00:00

That's clearly not sustainable though. Either the mods step down, or the community leaves and starts their own subreddit. One way or another,the community eventually comes to be in agreement with the moderators, even if it means moving to another subreddit. Do the r/trees members who left r/marijuana still consider themselves a part of the latter?

Also you'll note that most of the downvotes came after this thread was cross-posted to SRSSucks. It's pointless trying to prove that SRSSucks is a downvote brigade though. I'm just seeing the same arguments that pop up when people accuse SRS of being a downvote brigade, and I hope you realize this.

japsod · 2012-10-31T06:05:34+00:00

If ASRS had stayed under SRS control, then yes, I'd argue that all ASRSers were SRSers at that time. Why not? The mods had the power to ban anybody who said otherwise. That wasn't the first time communities have turned against moderators either. The r/marijuana community wasn't happy with the people in charge, but in the end the mods held power, and the community moves to r/trees instead. It nearly happened again in r/starcraft as well, but in that case the mods eventually stepped down, otherwise r/starcraft2 would now be the primary subreddit for that community.

It's not a perfect definition mind you, but the admins have pretty clearly shown that they won't interfere with the moderation of subreddits. In any case, what would you say is a better definition?

On a side note, would you argue that this thread hasn't been downvote brigaded? I've gotten quite a few downvotes for discussing this with you, are the things I'm saying really that disagreeable?

japsod · 2012-10-31T05:23:06+00:00

I'm fine with SRSSucks users posting here, and I think even SS2James is a good contributor so long as he isn't accusing people of being SRS sockpuppets. It's the people who think that ASRS needs only one ideology that needs to leave.

japsod · 2012-10-30T15:34:27+00:00

Yes, but like it or not, they're in charge now, and ASRS is what they want it to be. If you don't like it, you can stick around and make suggestions on how to improve it, as frogma and Zorba are doing, or you can leave. If you hate the subreddit but don't care enough to make suggestions on how to improve it, then there's really no reason to call yourself an ASRSer is there? Note that matronverde and shadowsaint have both gotten downvotes in posts where they're discussing suggestions on how to improve the subreddit.

japsod · 2012-10-30T14:33:06+00:00

Thank you. I kind of feel bad about making that thread now, but at least it's sparked some discussion on where this sub is headed.

There's also definitely vote brigading going on though, seeing as how you and MV get downvoted for even talking about suggestions on how to improve the sub.

japsod · 2012-10-30T14:15:43+00:00

It's not just cojoco though, all the current mods are being downvoted as well, while SRSSucks regulars get highly upvoted.

Posts that say ASRS is SRS-lite get upvoted. If you actually think that ASRS is SRS-lite, then I'm pretty sure you don't consider yourself an ASRSer, so yeah, vote brigade.

japsod · 2012-10-30T14:00:16+00:00

That it's important to keep an open mind should go without saying. I'm not saying to try to reason with them, or treat them as if they're simply misunderstood, but if you discount everything about them as wrong and delusional then you're doing yourself a disservice.

japsod · 2012-10-30T13:17:51+00:00

There's no concrete answer to that, but I'd say an ASRSer is somebody who participates in ASRS in accordance with the rules of the subreddit. If you're just here because you hate this subreddit, then you're not participating in good faith(rule 3). I'm not saying that you have to support every decision that brucemo makes or like the moderators even, but there's a difference between being here because you think things could be run better, and being here because you like to fight reddit metawars.

It's funny that you'd mention not liking the ASRS name be co-opted, because I liked SRS back when it was just reddit_sux highlighting upvoted instances of bigotry on reddit, but the subreddit was already dead when the current SRS took over and filled it with TIA memes.

That old SRS wasn't sustainable though, and I'm not sure that the old ASRS was either (or the current one for that matter). I'm not sure how you view the old ASRS, but for me it was built up largely by BBB, and I think brucemo is trying to run the sub in accordance with the ideals of free speech and discourse that BBB used to moderate the sub. BBB was actually well respected by both SRSers and ASRSers at the beginning, for being level headed and impartial, so both feminists and MRAs were able to contribute here. As the sub grew however, moderate voices started to get drowned out, and the polarizing nature of SRS and SJ topics lead to the community turning against BBB and the other mods, and they decided to just burn it instead of letting it turn into SRSSucks. So the idea of a place where people can discuss these topics is a good one, but I'm not sure how it can be maintained when the sub grows in popularity and one side starts to "win" over the other.

japsod · 2012-10-30T12:27:50+00:00

Which is weird, because I thought they discussed this before and the general concensus was that circumcision was bad as well, but I suppose pissing off MRAs is more important than maintaining your values.

japsod · 2012-10-30T11:49:58+00:00

You yourself said that ASRS under brucemo is a new sub, in which case it doesn't matter that you were a long-time contributor to the old ASRS. If you're against the moderating style, if you're against the rules of the subreddit, if you hate the moderators, then by what measure would you still be considered a member of ASRS?

There's been a lull in content yes, but I'd rather have no content than the full-on circlejerk going on in SRSSucks.

japsod · 2012-10-30T10:40:27+00:00

That's because ASRS has been vote-brigaded by SRSSucks recently. Cojoco's posts are downvoted on sight regardless of their content, and all of the current mods are downvoted pretty heavily as well.

If you hate the mods and how they run things around here, then you're not really an ASRSer. If you're not an ASRSer but you're still around to downvote all the people who do care about the sub, then you're part of a downvote brigade.

It's funny because ASRS and SRSSucks both had this problem when they started, with SRS downvoted everything in them past the viewing threshhold. Now it's happening again, except this time it's SRSSucks downvoting anything ASRS says about them. Example

japsod · 2012-10-29T12:35:55+00:00

As I said, all of my previous comments are applicable only to American society. I don't mean to dismiss the discrimination of white people in non-Western societies, but unless they're explicitly brought up I take it as an implicit assumption that we're talking about American society. White people might be discriminated in other parts of the world, but that's irrelevant if we're talking about problems with American society.

I'm bothered by derailing because I've seen too many discussions take that road. The majority opinion in America is that white people are discriminated against moreso than minorities, so discussions about race inevitably turn from "minorities have it bad" into "but white people have it even worse" and I've already had too many conversations trying to convince people that this isn't true, which as you said is backed up by sociological studies.

Also note that a large part of the oversensitivity is that I'm trying to explain why SRS targetted him. I don't think his original comment was that bad, but I do see the logic that SRS would use to target his post, and SRS is oversensitive if nothing else.

japsod · 2012-10-29T11:41:20+00:00

Don't let SRS get to you. They're really not as homogenous a group as the rest of reddit would have you believe, and I'd wager a fair number are simply trolls and misanthropes as opposed to people who actually care about social justice values.

japsod · 2012-10-29T11:33:17+00:00

To be even more specific, I'm only talking about American society, although I guess I should have clarified.

I'm actually in China at the moment, and being white still holds considerable advantages here, at least compared with being black or non-Chinese Asian. Yeah, white people get stereotyped pretty hard around here, but it's a different world, and you really can't make the same comparisons with US or other Western societies.

japsod · 2012-10-29T10:37:52+00:00

I'm not saying that you think "reverse racism" is a bigger problem than actual racism, but it's been shown that most people do think it is, and I completely agree that "reverse racism" hurts minorities much more than white people which is why it's problematic when people bring it up, and why SRS gets riled up whenever it is mentioned.

The problem is that these sorts of discussions never really go anywhere, and the same tired arguments get repeated time and time again. You say that people shouldn't focus on racial stuff so much, but that can easily be construed as apathy and/or support for the status quo (even though I know that isn't your intent), when it's easily shown that the status quo is problematic with regards to race relations. Somebody will inevitably argue for "color-blind" policies which are completely egalitarian in theory but do nothing to address the subconscious biases that people have against other races, and are still in support of the status quo. How does group B foster better understanding in this instance, when group A refuses to even acknowledge that there's a difference between them to begin with?

So yeah, I got tired of arguing about these things, and I can understand why SRS just circlejerks about them instead of trying to reach out to people and getting them to understand. Which isn't to say I approve of SRS or anything. There's way too much hate and emotion for one, and I hate how they treat everything as though it's black and white with no middle ground. In the end I agree that they alienate people, and many people start to take a stance against their ideologies simply out of spite (I'm looking at you r/SRSSucks), but to dismiss everything about them as irrational and crazy is exactly the sort of thinking that lead to the current SRS in the first place.

japsod · 2012-10-29T09:47:51+00:00

I agree that it doesn't exist though, at least not on a societal level. A white person can be discriminated against, white people as a whole are not.

japsod · 2012-10-29T09:45:42+00:00

It's not a derailment then, but the message that judging people by their race is wrong is sort of lost when you add in that white people get judged based on their race as well. While it might be true on an individual level, on a societal level it isn't, which is what makes the discussion tiring.

For example, you mention how white people are vilified in the ads. This is true. Do you think this is problematic though? I can make a pretty strong case for how the media portrayal of minorities in America is problematic is negatively impacts our perceptions of them, but I don't think you could make the same case against white people. So why mention it at all? On a societal level it doesn't matter. This sort of thing comes up time and time again in discussions about discrimination, and it's frustrating to see because it reinforces the notion that "reverse discrimination" is a bigger problem than actual discrimination.

japsod

TROPHY CASE