Well, you don't have to, it was more a jump off point for a discussion.
Well, I do think that Reddit is a bad place to look if you are looking for a site that actively attempts to retain a high quality of discourse especially site-wide. I think you're spot on with this. Is this basically, "Is Reddit and/or its moderaters really a decent site/decent people if they don't do anything in the face of the really nasty stuff?" I think that Reddit tries to cover its ass legally when it becomes apparent that Reddit might need to. And otherwise I think they don't want to interfere. I don't think that makes them decent people, I think it makes them very self-interested. Good things can arise from such freedoms but also, very very bad things, as you've observed. Because people believe we're all decent human beings offline, and they don't consider that perhaps there's a difference or a loss in such an idea when we take it virtual. This does present an interesting question of "does being online make us less human?" Which could go all sorts of fun ways. We know that taking the face, and the voice out of interactions makes them less personal: that's why people these days love texting and hate the phone, and eye contact is so hard, and etc. I think it's easier to be mean, and/or do nothing, online. For the lack of personalization and the anonymity everyone is trumpeting on about. But just because it is easier to be mean and more people are mean, does not mean that as a whole humanity is more bad. Maybe?What I gather is that "decent" is a very subjective ideal. What some of us find to be reasoned discourse is dismissed as small minded bigotry and lack of perspective by others, what is deemed valid criticism by some is seen as baiting and troublemaking by the opposition. We all tend to operate in extremes.
My question is this; can you still call yourself a decent person if your go to response is seemingly always silence?
where does the belief that we're all decent human beings online come from?
It may be my fault but the focus shouldn't really be Reddit, this has repeated itself in Twitter, Facebook, various message boards, it was basically the downfall of Digg. In terms of Facebook they seem to be very much stricter in what they do and don't allow which insulates them legally. Want to show a beheading? Nope. Breastfeeding your baby? Nope. Someone flagged your WorldStar sourced video too many times? Yoink. Looking at the real world we see it even with the ISIS militia in Iraq. Even they, feeling they're righteous in their deeds, cover their faces, seemingly still needing the cloak of anonymity to carry out their most barbaric of activities. It's not only on the internet where we give in to our most base instincts when no one knows our names.Is this basically, "Is Reddit and/or its moderaters really a decent site/decent people if they don't do anything in the face of the really nasty stuff?"
Why is it awful? I think the thing that most struck people here in the UK when the July 7th bombings happened was the regular mundane lives the terrorists lived until the day they did the deed. The same with people caught in the recent child grooming rings. My contention is against the phrase "normal people". Do we all simply live in societies that reward good behaviour and decency in opposition to our nature? Are we mostly polite not because we really want to be but because we'd like it in reciprocation?
I wasn't saying that it was offensive. Just that a religiously and ideologically crazed radical isn't at all comparable to the average person. Not even the "lol phaggots suck dix" type. And I don't see anything wrong or disingenuous about treating people well in the hopes of being treated well in return. Reciprocation is the basis of every relationship and friendship I've ever had. It doesn't mean I'm fighting some suppressed nature to be an asshole.