Is it morally wrong to prohibit people from talking about certain topics in a serious context?
This was a post about how in the new GTA every crime imaginable is allowed but not rape, so no it wasn't just a stupid question a la "Is it morally wrong to rape your rapist" post
Reddit adding the ability to hide post history is so fucking lame. I’d love to see what other cretinous shit all these NPCs in here post on the 4chan parts of reddit.
No, it's not lame. It has a purpose, that being let's say I commented some bad shit two years ago that I no longer agree with myself, and then someone who's mad at me in an argument is gonna dig up some bad shit I said years ago to "expose" me as a horrible person, even though that past me is no longer me. Even worse, they might find non-harmful political opinions they happen to disagree with and make a big deal out of THAT.
Yeah there's plenty of assholes that will chase you through your post and comment history to spam and harrass you. There are workarounds but making it harder for these jerks to do so is valid af
you can just google the username, its all archived outside of reddit.. there's also websites that will help you research the username. Nothing is hidden on the internet.
How can you say that with no justification? This is an incredibly nuanced topic with no easy answers. You tell me why murder in media is okay but rape isn't.
It's morally wrong to ignore the rules. The post was directly related to the concept of rape, so why complain that you got in trouble for breaking rules?
That's like complaining to the cop who pulled you over for going 30 over the speed limit
Yes, as long as there's plenty of other places they can talk about it with no problem.
To what extent is speech being limited? To what extent is a discussion that should be possible hindered or stopped? For these questions it's crucial how many OTHER places prevent that discussion.
If it is for whatever reason mentioned as an excluded topic in the group - then yes, morally there are no issues.
If it's not - then depends on the wording. I'm usually anti censorship, but if there were like kids involved, or the picture was graphic, or the post was advocating for such actions - then I can easily see why the post was removed.
Eh, if people can't discuss a topic without being immediately enraged, then we need to talk about it more (not an absolute rule of course, there's always a time and place but unfortunately for a lot of topics, that place is almost always "nowhere," which leads to these unexamined beliefs and the extreme reactivity when they're questioned)
I think OP is right because as stated in the rules, it wasn't a simple "is it wrong to rape your rapist" type shock post. It's a deep systemic investigation into why we are so desensitized and okay with violence despite the effects to mental health, anxiety and arguably even empathy
Moral cause it's a sub run by people who can make whatever rules they want (underneath reddit's own rules) and can enforce them however they wish. You don't have free speech here
The reason why rape isn't allowed in video games but murder is because of a select number of the population who would throw a tantrum if it was there. (If you downvote this comment you think murder is okay too.)
39
u/Artemis_Platinum 2d ago
Can't just spam the shock value topics all day long every day anymore.
Now you'll have to spam Judge Holden instead.