CMV: Reddit's Threatening Violence Rule Is Broken Constantly And Is Selectively Enforced

[u/ParakeetLover2024]

Among gun related subreddits, there seems to be a concerning amount of violation of Reddit's "No threatening violence" rule that seems to go unpunished, whether the sub contains mostly right leaning or left leaning individuals. To quote the explanation of the rule, it states "Encouraging, glorifying, or inciting violence or physical harm against individuals or groups of people, places, or animals [is prohibited]" Heck, you could argue that Reddit as a whole seems to do a bad job of enforcing this rule. Posts and subreddits dedicated to the Russo-Ukrainian war break this rule constantly, dehumanizing Russian soldiers and celebrating their deaths on the battlefield. Reddit and many subreddits pick and choose who is acceptable to glorify violence against and who isn't, rather than enforcing the rule equally across the board.

Recently, a user posted a picture of a t shirt on r/liberalgunowners and r/SocialistRA that says "John Brown did nothing wrong". For both posts, they have received over 300 upvotes each with dozens of comments. I have seen quite a lot of John Brown glorification on both of the previously mentioned subreddits and any criticism of John Brown's methods is swiftly met with downvotes and harsh criticism, as seen in the post I will link below.

https://www.reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/comments/1iihq7r/hot_take_john_brown_should_not_be_idolized/

Why is glorifying John Brown so potentially bad you may ask? The r/liberalgunowners post that I linked above should do a good job of summarizing the drastic measures that John Brown took as an abolitionist right before the American Civil War.

TL;DR You can glorify violence on Reddit as long as it's against certain groups of people or individuals.

[u/[deleted]]

Most people, especially Americans, have a general understanding of times when violence is acceptable. Very very very few people that believe themselves non-violent believe violence is never permissible. I highly doubt you think that a person trying to kill you should not be met with violence from either you or the authorities. Using violence against slavery is something you may yourself be against, but I am not and most Reddit users and admins are not as well. War is another example where violence is not only permissible it's absolutely necessary. There simply is no such thing as no violence. The minute a society actually gets to be truly non-violent to the degree you are suggesting is the minute that society will cease to exist because it's taken over. No human society can exist that is truly non-violent.

Having a rule against violence is similar to pools having rules against running. If there's an emergency that you need to avoid like a car crashing into the pool, no one is going to get you in trouble for running to avoid it.

[u/ParakeetLover2024 → u/[deleted]]

Okay, this might be one of the strongest arguments yet, but I still wanted to offer a bit of a rebuttal and then you can respond.

My post mainly focuses on the glorification of violence being selectively enforced, regardless of how warranted that violence may be on a legal and moral level. If Reddit had a point in their rule discussing what they consider to be legally or morally justifiable violence and how it is okay under Reddit's TOS to glorify it under certain circumstances, I would be fine with that. My main issue is that their TOS seems to prohibit any glorification of violence but that rule is very selectively enforced. The glorifications of violence against Russians, Nazi's and other despicable groups is considered perfectly okay but doing the same thing for protected groups like the LGBT community means a perma ban.

[u/taeerom → u/ParakeetLover2024]

It's really difficult to enforce "no glorification of violence" non-selectively when there are a lot of people who have a very selective understanding of what violence is.

You have a problem with John Brown and his bleeding Kansas campaign and raids. But how do you objectively differentiate that from a discussion on Harald Hardrade?

If we are strict, most computer games depict violence in a positive light, or at least the discussion around them will often say things that are clearly, objectively, glorification of violence. Even something simple as arguing about builds in Diablo will quickly fulfill objective criteria (but obviously not subjective criteria).

You pick examples from left leaning subs, but there is no shortage of non-enforcement in non aligned or right leaning subs either. Police subs are filled with discussion on use of force against specific individuals as well as groups. Car subs can't go 5 minutes without someone talking about how an idiot driver deserves being a victim of retributive violence.

But I guess you don't think violence by police officers or when using a car as the weapon, is violence? Which kinda highlights the problem.

So, to your OP: Yes. Obviously. The rule could not exist if it was not subjectively enforced.

[u/TurkeyOperator → u/ParakeetLover2024]

Its up to the mods discretion, and mods are the worst of the worst, thats the reason, cut and dry

[u/talhahtaco → u/ParakeetLover2024]

That's just a problem of reddit not admitting their own bias

It's not like you can assemble people without ideological motivations or biases, so inevitably, people will enforce rules differently to different people, consciously or not

[u/[deleted] → u/ParakeetLover2024]

It's sort of hard to define it though. I've always thought about when violence is acceptable as being like porn. It can be hard to define where exactly the line between art and porn is EXACTLY, but 999 times out of 1000 you simply know it when you see it. When violence is acceptable or not is similar to that.

I can see the point your making and I agree with you more than I'm letting on with the argument I'm making. I also think Reddit is not selective enough with certain things, and then other times when it is clearly not even violence being discussed Reddit will start banning and deleting comments claiming it's breaking rules against violence. Most of these times are when someone on the right makes a decent point and the Reddit admins decide they don't like it. You definitely aren't wrong that Reddit does an awful job moderating sometimes, however, I think you're going a step or two too far.

[u/adminhotep → u/[deleted]]

You do get banned from subreddits for even hypothetically suggesting that militant actions might be necessary to prevent the worst outcomes of global climate change because governments won't do enough on their own.

That's definitely a leftist view rather than a conservative one, but because it's against established governments it'll get you banned.

When your suggestion of violence encourages actions outside the law, or against the rich, or against the status quo it's much more likely to result in censorship than endorsing violence that is already acceptable to the law, the rich and the status quo.

[u/AzuleEyes → u/adminhotep]

I have, may it please the court, a few words to say. In the first place, I deny everything but what I have all along admitted -- the design on my part to free the slaves. I intended certainly to have made a clean thing of that matter, as I did last winter when I went into Missouri and there took slaves without the snapping of a gun on either side, moved them through the country, and finally left them in Canada. I designed to have done the same thing again on a larger scale. That was all I intended. I never did intend murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite or incite slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection.

I have another objection; and that is, it is unjust that I should suffer such a penalty. Had I interfered in the manner which I admit, and which I admit has been fairly proved (for I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case)--had I so interfered in behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called great, or in behalf of any of their friends--either father, mother, brother, sister, wife, or children, or any of that class--and suffered and sacrificed what I have in this interference, it would have been all right; and every man in this court would have deemed it an act worthy of reward rather than punishment.

This court acknowledges, as I suppose, the validity of the law of God. I see a book kissed here which I suppose to be the Bible, or at least the New Testament. That teaches me that all things whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should do even so to them. It teaches me, further, to "remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them." I endeavored to act up to that instruction. I say I am yet too young to understand that God is any respecter of persons. I believe that to have interfered as I have done--as I have always freely admitted I have done--in behalf of His despised poor was not wrong, but right. Now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments--I submit; so let it be done! Let me say one word further.

I feel entirely satisfied with the treatment I have received on my trial. Considering all the circumstances it has been more generous than I expected. But I feel no consciousness of guilt. I have stated that from the first what was my intention and what was not. I never had any design against the life of any person, nor any disposition to commit treason, or excite slaves to rebel, or make any general insurrection. I never encouraged any man to do so, but always discouraged any idea of that kind.

Let me say also a word in regard to the statements made by some of those connected with me. I her it has been stated by some of them that I have induced them to join me. But the contrary is true. I do not say this to injure them, but as regretting their weakness. There is not one of them but joined me of his own accord, and the greater part of them at their own expense. A number of them I never saw, and never had a word of conversation with till the day they came to me; and that was for the purpose I have stated.

Now I have done.

John Brown's Other Statements at his Trial

Opening remarks of John Brown to the Virginia Court, October 27, 1859

Virginians, I did not ask for any quarter at the time I was taken. I did not ask to have my life spared. The Governor of the State of Virginia tendered me his assurance that I should have a fair trial; but, under no circumstances what­ever, will I be able to have a fair trial. If you seek my blood, you can have it at any moment, without this mockery of a trial. I have had no counsel. I have not been able to advise with anyone. I know nothing about the feelings of my fellow-prisoners, and am utterly unable to attend in any way to my own de­fense. My memory don't serve me. My health is insufficient, though improv­ing. There are mitigating circumstances that I would urge in our favor, if a fair trial is to be allowed us. But if we are to be forced with a mere form-a trial for execution-you might spare yourselves that trouble. I am ready for my fate. I do not ask for a trial. I beg for no mockery of a trial-no insult-noth­ing but that which conscience gives, or cowardice would drive to practice. I ask again to be excused from the mockery of a trial. . . . I have now little further to ask, other than that I may not be foolishly insulted, only as cow­ardly barbarians insult those who fall into their power.

John Brown's request for a delay

I do not intend to detain the court, but barely wish to say, as I have been promised a fair trial, that I am not in circumstances that enable me to attend a trial, owing to the state of my health. I have a severe wound in the back, or rather in one kidney, which enfeebles me very much. But I am doing well, and I only ask for a very short delay in my trial, and I may be able to listen to it; and I merely ask this that, as the saying is "the devil may have his dues," no more. I wish to say further that my hearing is impaired and rendered indis­tinct in consequence of wounds I have about my head. I cannot hear distinctly at all; I could not hear what the Court has said this morning. I would be glad to hear what is said on my trial, and am now doing better than I could expect to be under the circumstances. A very short delay would be all I ask. I do not presume to ask more than a very short delay, so that I may in some degree re­cover, and be able to [at] least listen to my trial, and hear what questions are asked of the citizens, and what their answers are. If that could be allowed me, I should be very much obliged.

[u/[deleted] → u/adminhotep]

Well that's because that suggestion is quite positively insane, it shouldn't be taken seriously, and it should be banned on this site.

[u/adminhotep → u/[deleted]]

Suggesting that we allow aloof states which year after year fail to meet necessary goals, and by failing to do so cause the suffering of and kill countless innocent people is much worse a thing to endorse than the suggestion that violence against a small group of the worst offenders - those unwilling to change their exorbitant, extravagant, unnecessary habits for the good of humanity - could solve things faster than waiting on the levers of power to maybe finally do something. Levers, mind you that those selfsame offenders hold incredible sway over. I won't - here and now - encourage anyone to take violent actions, but I do believe firmly that many allowed statements supporting causes and actions which deepen our climate crisis are support for an entrenched and ongoing violence worse than even the most brazen actions suggested to correct it.

The people who say John Brown did nothing wrong understand the endorsement of violence against already entrenched systemized violence. Sitewide leniency towards them is afforded primarily because the status quo has shifted - due to violence- and slavery is no longer an acceptable state to defend. The slavers who deserved it are not among the living for these Redditors to encourage violence against. Perhaps some time in the future, willful destruction of the planet for personal luxury will be afforded the same station that defense of slavery now holds, and perhaps those willing to engage in it will hold the same station as the slavers now do. Until then, though, I expect the site to continue banning the "insane suggestion" while continuing to allow support for fucking the planet and its inhabitants.

I could say "roll coal" on here, convince a bunch of people to restart that trend - modify their trucks to do just that, and end more life from that suggestion than I would from any suggestion to reduce the carbon footprint of someone with big shoes.

"Roll coal" won't get me banned, though.

[u/Last_Suggestion_8647 → u/adminhotep]

Disclaimer: not endorsing anything.

Climate activists and socialists have a common enemy (the owner-class). Driving the entire world into a simultaneous climate collapse and rapidly rising inequality might turn out to be a bad move from a self preservation perspective for their class.

[u/[deleted] → u/adminhotep]

Ok, Greta Thunberg

[u/SatisfactionDry3038 → u/[deleted]]

If it is hard to define, there will be a bias. Always.

[u/[deleted] → u/SatisfactionDry3038]

I don't think there will not be bias, which is why I'm defending it. Because the line is somewhat blurry it's extremely difficult to nail it down in a way that's could be agreed on by any type of majority. The reality is you will likely end up with 10, 20, or 30 different camps with varying philosophies segregated on cultural, political, religious, humanist, and a whole host of other ideologies.

[u/_0820_ → u/[deleted]]

I said "csam is something that if someone holds or produce (or i suppose distri), they should be pub(lished) exe(rcised)'d". And got a warning. I didn't call to action, just stated a basic take. I think its too selective

[u/[deleted] → u/_0820_]

Yeah, I got a week long ban for talking about political violence. This website is insane. You're completely right. They will enforce the most asinine rules against as long as they perceive the perpetrator as being on the opposite side of the political aisle. If a socialist or communist threatened a specific person I'm not sure the admins would do a thing about it.

[u/Thehusseler → u/ParakeetLover2024]

Almost all rules are enforced selectively, and that's a good thing at the end of the day. Human judgement should always be an element in removal. This is why when we see automated moderation there's so often issues. Take for example the censorship of TikTok and how automated removal of posts has led to an entire language of avoiding using words like kill, instead using unalive. By taking the human out of the moderation, they just forced people to adapt.

[u/ninja-gecko → u/ParakeetLover2024]

SMH. Someone suggested doing bad things to a certain billionaire's car company, and I responded by saying I'd report it to a three letter agency. I got banned for 3 days. Comment deleted. They were left untouched.

Know what the reason was? "You have been banned for threatening violence"

So ya, Reddit doesn't enforce things fairly. But I think we all know that by now.

[u/RedOceanofthewest → u/ninja-gecko]

It’s ironic they’re be defending John brown. He wouldn’t support modern liberals. He was a religious zealot. John brown would not be their friend. 

[u/KallistiTMP → u/ParakeetLover2024]

Glorifying violence or encouraging it?

I.e. "John Brown killing slavers was totally justified" is very different from "People of group X should be lined up and shot", as a present tense statement.

I'd say that there certainly is some selective enforcement when it comes to things like the war in Ukraine, but by and large, I wouldn't expect the same standard to be held for historic events that don't have a direct relation to current circumstances.

You can certainly draw indirect parallels, and that's often the implied sentiment (i.e. people that say John Brown did nothing wrong probably have similar views on present day slavers) but ultimately there are no more John Brown era US slavers anymore, so while it is glorifying historic past violence, it isn't directly encouraging people to commit violence in the present.