あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]AdvocateForLucifer 23ポイント24ポイント  (56子コメント)

When you say, "Reddit" what do you mean? I highly doubt it's the admins removing the posts. Like with this, it was removed for being tabloid news. WashingtonExaminer.com seems to have a pretty obvious slant, and have a lot of tabloid-style headlines. Seems like a fair removal.

edit, after reading the article:

Yeah, seriously this is garbage. Tabloid would be a pretty fair descriptor. This isn't a news article, it's a propaganda piece.

An Amherst College student blacked out, accompanied a fellow student back to her dorm room after drinking in February 2012. While he was blacked out, she performed oral sex on him.

You can already see the slant from the first sentence. There's no question of doubt here at all; everything is taken at face value. I know someone's going to reply and say, "You wouldn't say that if it was a woman who was raped," but really my problem is that there's no information at all. Anywhere. In the entire article. It's just, "He was blacked out, she blew him and accused him of something." Repeated ad naseum.

Nearly two years later, she would accuse him of sexual assault. And under Amherst's guilty-until-proven-innocent (and even then, as we'll see, still guilty) hearing standards, the accused student was expelled.

See those parentheses? Yeah. That's not exactly the mark of a great journalist. This is just injecting opinion into a piece where just giving a short overview of the known facts would suffice. Unless of course the person who wrote this article doesn't know much other than the guy is counter-suing, but then of course, it isn't journalism.

His lawyer had discovered text messages that prove the accused student did not initiate the encounter and in no way sexually assaulted the accuser. Despite this evidence, the college refused to reopen Doe's case.

This evidence. Which we're just going to assume exists because his lawyer said so.

K.C. Johnson, co-author of the book about the Duke lacrosse rape hoax,

The most impartial source you could find, I'm sure.

The rest of the article is basically pull quotes from this guy, talking about the college's "Yes means yes" policy, and saying that it's not reasonable that someone should be held to that burden of proof. That at least I agree with, but the way it's presented just leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.

What this issue needs is actual journalists. Not click-bait, sex-war-baiting posts from some right-wing tabloid site which only appeal to a slim range of people who follow the Mens Rights movement. Articles like this only make it harder for male rape victims to be seen with any sort of legitimacy. It's the kind of article that makes a feminist like me skeptical of the Mens Rights movement.

[–]Munchausen-By-Proxy 31ポイント32ポイント  (33子コメント)

Articles like this only make it harder for male rape victims to be seen with any sort of legitimacy. It's the kind of article that makes a feminist like me skeptical of the Mens Rights movement.

Sad to see this kind of dishonesty being upvoted on what should be a safe place for men. It is clear that there is no "right" way to advocate for male rape victims, even when we follow feminist standards of "listen and believe" we're apparently doing harm.

[–]FukRPolitics 3ポイント4ポイント  (8子コメント)

Sad to see this kind of dishonesty being upvoted on what should be a safe place for men.

A lot of feminist lurkers, most likely.

[–]AdvocateForLucifer -2ポイント-1ポイント  (7子コメント)

There are a lot more MRAs than feminists on reddit. I don't really think my comment was dishonest at all; basically the only critique is against the subreddit mods who aren't removing similar shit. But that's not my problem, it's theirs. Ask the mods to take down the other content. But there's just no arguing that from a journalistic standpoint that the article that /r/NotTheOnion removed was tabloid garbage.

Or am I not allowed to have an opinion in this subreddit, as a guy, because I don't agree that feminism is the devil?

[–]CheshireSwift 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

You're fighting a losing battle, r/OneY is basically turning into a slightly more erudite r/MRA.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. The article is on the level of "all men are rapists, women are only safe around other women" conspiracy/opinion trash.

[–]fightingbuddha[S] 7ポイント8ポイント  (5子コメント)

Ah a subreddit called oneY cares about men's issues. Who could've thought!!

[–]CheshireSwift -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Men's issues isn't the same as a trashy, misogynistic, "woe is me" echo chamber. Grow a fucking spine and stop blaming your inadequacies on others.

[–]fightingbuddha[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

I am sorry you find talking about men's issues as "trashy, misogynistic, "woe is me" echo chamber"

May be it's the feminist echo chambers that gave you the idea that talking about men's problem is a hateful thing. I wouldn't say a woman talking about the issues she face is "whining". I expect the same level of decency from you. I guess that's one of the reasons why I am not an angry feminist sjw.

Ignoring the ad hominem with deserving contempt.

[–]CheshireSwift 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't find talking about men's issues a problem, that's why I'm here. I'm talking the specific website linked here, which is unmitigated fluff.

[–]moratnz -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Y'know how people bitch about rabid feminazis?

Rabid masculnazis are just as boring and irritating.

Hypersensitivity to anything that looks vaguely like an injustice, and a tendency to fly off the handle on being triggered are hallmarks of both lots.

I hope it's possible to advocate for gender issues without growing an enormous victim complex, but the behaviour of some MRAs makes me wonder.

[–]fightingbuddha[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah.

Victim complex is a subjective thing though. Whining, victim complex, bitter, etc are just distraction tactics, imo. But I see what you're saying.

Okay.

[–]PetGiraffe 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

Are you kidding? Because I feel like you're fucking with me if you really believe what you wrote. I love how outraged a feminist piece can come off as and it's a bunch of "you go girl, give em hell!" And when a piece comes along that has the same outrage about female on male sexual assault, you want to categorize it as essentially sensationalism? I feel like my fellow males are being driven to a sort of "alpha male extinction event". No longer can I be the breadwinner, or date multiple women while uncommitted, or even report when I have been sexually assaulted by a woman, because my thoughts don't matter, and rape only happens TO a woman. God help us all.

[–]AdvocateForLucifer -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I have literally never said any of that, FYI. I just thought that it's ridiculous how there's so much outrage over tabloid garbage like this article being removed, just because it happens to be a hot button issue. If it was an article about Caitlyn Jenner and it was removed, it wouldn't be over here. It's intellectually dishonest to suppose that it was removed for any other reason than just being a shitty article, drumming up page views by appealing to the MRA crowd. It's objectively bad journalism. The reason you don't see me complaining about the other side of the coin is because the other side of the coin almost never comes up on reddit (or at least, on the subs I frequent).

[–]Kareem_Jordan 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

The reason you don't see me complaining about the other side of the coin is because the other side of the coin almost never comes up on reddit (or at least, on the subs I frequent).

Do you frequent this one, because we frequently get that other coin. Luckily, it gets downvoted here, even if other subs upvote it and then link to our discussions.

I guess I'm skeptical that A Rape on Campus would ever be removed regardless of the reports, and we all know it was far from quality journalism.

[–]AdvocateForLucifer 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, but at least it postured as real journalism. Until the scandal hit, there was basically no criticism because it's Rolling Stone and obviously they have editorial standards, right? Obviously hindsight and all, but it's a lot easier to spot out an article like this which is pretty blatant versus a cover story for one of the major magazines.

I'm not even accusing the guy who wrote this story of making it up. I just think it was terribly written and deserved to be removed based on the low quality.

[–]fightingbuddha[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (9子コメント)

Yeah, seriously this is garbage. Tabloid would be a pretty fair descriptor. This isn't a news article, it's a propaganda piece.

The point is several articles of the same quality from WashingtonExaminer is accepted. Why not this? And why not let the community decide if it's low quality or not? That's why we have the upvote/downvote buttons.

You can already see the slant from the first sentence. There's no question of doubt here at all; everything is taken at face value. I know someone's going to reply and say, "You wouldn't say that if it was a woman who was raped," but really my problem is that there's no information at all.

Still the judgement should be left to the community not a single overlord.

See those parentheses? Yeah. That's not exactly the mark of a great journalist.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

His lawyer had discovered text messages that prove the accused student did not initiate the encounter and in no way sexually assaulted the accuser. Despite this evidence, the college refused to reopen Doe's case.

K.C. Johnson, co-author of the book about the Duke lacrosse rape hoax, The most impartial source you could find, I'm sure.

Journalists don't have to stay impartial. Or may be she's not aware of her own bias? Doesn't justify the removal, AGAIN.

What this issue needs is actual journalists. Not click-bait, sex-war-baiting posts from some right-wing tabloid site which only appeal to a slim range of people who follow the Mens Rights movement.

Yeah I remember a time when people wrote such articles and then idiots like Marcotte shot it down with sarcastic tirade.

Articles like this only make it harder for male rape victims to be seen with any sort of legitimacy. It's the kind of article that makes a feminist like me skeptical of the Mens Rights movement.

Articles such as this have a bigger impact and do a better job at bringing attention to male rape victims than a nerdbashing by self-proclaimed nerd-educators.

Lastly, you are discussing an article that was removed by admin/mod.

The issue here is not the quality of the article, but the basis of removal.

[–]raytendo 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

you're taking issue with AdvocateForLucifer and/or some grand conspiracy when really you should just PM the mod who removed the article and say "here is why i think you made a mistake." one mod removed it, not anyone in this comments section.

[–]AdvocateForLucifer 5ポイント6ポイント  (5子コメント)

The upvote-downvote system never works. It NEVER works. I've modded subreddits, and trust me. If mods didn't exist, the site would be even more soap-boxy than it is today. People don't upvote based on what's good or bad, they vote based on how they're already biased. Reddit leans more to the MRA side of things, so obviously something like this is going to be upvoted. Even if it's pure journalistic filth.

Most of reddit doesn't look past the title, and they upvote based on emotion. Based on the algorithm which pushes posts to the front, ease of understanding is the best way for something to rise fast. If you have to take the time to see that an article's shit and then downvote, it's already hit the rising page because of the people who didn't click through.

If a journalist is injecting his opinion blatantly into the piece he's writing, it's not journalism. I mean, feel free to cover issues which affect you personally or which you personally support, but I shouldn't be able to pick out any sort of obvious bias from just a cursory look.

The post broke the subreddit rules against tabloid garbage, because that's exactly what this is. Straight filth that would fail a first-year journalism student.

It was removed because it didn't meet the standard requirements set by the subreddit moderators. Just like it would have never been approved if TheWashingtonExaminer was anything more than a conservative clickbait circlejerk.

[–]BlooregardQKazoo 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

preach it.

i've had a little back-and-forth on this thread in /r/foodforthought that's very relevant. /r/foodforthought is supposed to be a DepthHub subreddit but a garbage submission that's essentially a blog post (all opinion, no substance) is over +500. and some people defend it as a discussion-starter even though the sidebar specifically states that the sub is not the place for discussion-starters.

once a community gets above a certain (small) size the upvote system doesn't work because people just upvote titles they like or garbage, easily-consumed content, and there are enough casuals to completely overwhelm the people who try to enforce subreddit rules. /r/nottheonion, the sub being discussed here, is another great example of people just upvoting things they like without concern for which sub it is in. these subs would be even worse if not for moderation.

[–]Kaemdar 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

yeah. this seems like something that would have gotten removed regardless of whatever is going on currently.

[–]CACKENBOOLS 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Maybe you should dispute the veracity of it rather than the writing style.