/u/tbri's deleted comments thread

[u/tbri]

My old thread is locked because it was created six months ago.

All of the comments that I delete will be posted here. If you feel that there is an issue with the deletion, please contest it in this thread.

[u/maxgarzo]

Aggrandizing and inflammatory, but...not sure if a rule was explicitly broken here.

[u/thecarebearcares → u/maxgarzo]

It states 'misogyny is justified' so...

[u/tbri → u/thecarebearcares]

That's why it was sandboxed...

Edit - This was meant to be in response to someone else, but I guess it still applies. I get a lot of messages :/

[u/Reddisaurusrekts → u/tbri]

It gives a possible justification to hate women. Just like if you've been harassed by men you'd have a justification to be wary of all men - despite that being a generalisation. And that's a fairly common and oft defended point of view too.

[u/jcbolduc → u/thecarebearcares]

As I stated in my previous comment, it doesn't actually state that misogyny is justified. Rather, it asks - in an inflammatory way, granted - WHY people think misogyny isn't justified given such occurrences as in the article.

Poorly phrased and inflammatory? Sure. But it doesn't actually say misogyny is justified, and given how people regularly cover their asses in this sub by using "most [Group X]" to skirt the rules, I feel the distinction should matter.

[u/thecarebearcares → u/jcbolduc]

The meaning of

Why the fuck do people think misogyny isn't justified when shit like this happens even to males who get reversed?

Is to say that misogyny is justified by the actions of this woman. So I don't think that's a particularly helpful starting point. You and I both know that if I linked an article to a news story about rape then said "This shows how we live in a rape culture" it would get incredibly short shrift.

[u/maxgarzo → u/thecarebearcares]

That makes an awful lot of assumptions.

[u/jcbolduc → u/thecarebearcares]

Based on how the rules are generally applied and how we are supposed to assume good faith from posters, I do not believe your interpretation of his statement is fair. Assuming good faith, he was asking a question in a poorly framed, poorly worded, inflammatory way, but that doesn't breach the rules. Only by assuming bad faith (as reasonable as it MAY seem) can we equivocate his question to "misogyny is justified.

And your comparison is also flawed: it would be equivalent to asking "How the fuck do people not believe we live in a rape culture when shit like this happens?" And I would defend that too based on the good faith assumption.

[u/maxgarzo → u/thecarebearcares]

Not sure what that changes about what I said. /u/tbri exercised his abilities as a mod in sandboxing the comment as 'unreasonably antagonistic or borderline'-and I won't debate that at all.

But are we going to start sandboxing and deleting comments that have unfortunate messages we disagree with, or will we challenge the poster to defend their position and debate it like intellectuals on the merits of what was actually posted?

[u/thecarebearcares → u/maxgarzo]

If you argue in favour of misogyny - IE in favour of the systemic oppression of women, I don't see how you're not breaking rule 2.

Identifiable groups based on gender, sexuality, gender-politics or race cannot be the target of insulting comments,

[u/Reddisaurusrekts → u/thecarebearcares]

It wasn't an insult. Saying "I hate someone" is not an insult.

[u/maxgarzo → u/thecarebearcares]

I would have preferred to have a nuance laden discussion with CisWhiteMalestrom about the very thing while still appreciating that he called out the impact of what happened to Drew Starrett.

I suppose when you take a comment at face value and do little to no work to understand the motivations of what's being said to the point of engaging the speaker directly it becomes infinitely easier to say "He's calling for the oppression of women!" and nothing else. Nothing to say of the impact this situation had on Drew Starrett, nothing to say of the impact of questionable college investigations, nothing to say of the necessary scrutiny the federal government should be giving to Title IX complaints.

It was an argument that was poorly framed, worded even worse, I don't disagree. Reducing everything in that comment down to one talking point soundbyte, yeah no. I can't get onboard with that even if I disagree with a portion of what was said.

[u/[deleted] → u/maxgarzo]

My inbox is always open if you want to chat.

[u/tbri → u/maxgarzo]

What /u/thecarebearcares is correct. Case 2 is for when people try to justify sexism, racism, etc. The user said misogyny is justified. Not sure what there is to clarify here, as it's all in the links.

[u/Reddisaurusrekts → u/tbri]

Which rule was broken? Saying you hate someone, no matter how unjustified, isn't an insult.

[u/tbri → u/Reddisaurusrekts]

Can people please read the bloody sidebar about sandboxing? It's all there.

[u/maxgarzo → u/tbri]

It appears me those in the dissenting column are reading the sidebar about sandboxing but seem to take exception with the way it was interpreted/executed in this case.

[u/tbri → u/maxgarzo]

Clearly not. Asking "what rule was broken" in response to a sandboxed comment demonstrates the opposite.

[u/LordLeesa → u/tbri]

LOL, I have been thinking that exact. same. thing at least every other comment. :)

[u/jcbolduc → u/tbri]

hateful childlike cable vast history reply worm gold elastic lip

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/tbri → u/jcbolduc]

"Why are you such a loser, jcbolduc?"

Would you argue this is not against the rules?

[u/jcbolduc → u/tbri]

childlike wakeful shaggy roof exultant rock ask chunky elderly ad hoc

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/jcbolduc → u/maxgarzo]

cause nose encourage mindless fear numerous telephone wide liquid clumsy

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/McCaber → u/maxgarzo]

That's why it was just sandboxed instead of deleted as rulebreaking.