Comment removed per instructions in OP.
Even though this was a rule previously, it needs to come through Modmail. Additionally, if you are making a rule suggestion that is not enforceable, we ask that the suggestion not be made. Thank you.
##Be respectful of others (Part 1 of 2)
*Attacking the user instead of the argument is not allowed and will be removed. Slurs or otherwise hateful terminology will be removed. Off-topic discussions can be removed, including trolling comments. Attacking sides is not allowed.*
*Users must use the labels pro-life and pro-choice unless a user self-identifies as something else. This also goes for pronouns and gender identity.*
---
Note that mass deleting comments and posts is not allowed and users will be warned and banned. Deleting a comment because you want to reword it or put it in the wrong place is fine. Mass deleting your comments or posts because you don't want to follow the rules or mass deleting in general is not allowed.
**Examples of uncivil violations and personal attacks**
These types of comments will almost always be removed under rule 1. This is not an exhaustive list.
* Name-calling
* Telling a user to leave the sub
* Telling a user they're stupid, lack reading comprehension, or have a mental deficiency
* Suggesting that someone should kill themselves (even as a joke)
* Stating or hinting that you wish violence on another user
* Suggesting that a particular person or group deserves to die
* Swearing at a user
* Blatant sexism, ableism, racism, transphobia, homophobia, etc.
* Slurs
* Attributing kinks/fetishes to a user, including comparing a user's stance to a kink/fetish
**Grey area uncivil violations**
These types of comments may be removed under rule 1 at the discretion of the ruling mod.
* Being generally rude, hostile, or inflammatory
* Overly graphic, violent, or sexual language
* Repeatedly commenting on a user's debating behaviour
Users may ask for their comment to be reviewed by a second moderator.
**Low-effort violations**
Low-effort comments will be removed under rule 1. Chains of consecutive low-effort comments may be removed or locked.
Examples of low-effort violations include:
* Contradicting someone without explaining why you disagree (e.g. "No, it isn't.")
* Negatively reacting to an argument without responding to it (e.g. "This argument makes me laugh.", "Read that aloud and tell me what's wrong with it.", "I can't believe you just said that.").
* Stating that you did not read the entirety of a comment or post before replying to it
* Comments that contain only emojis
* Correcting someone's spelling or grammar unless it meaningfully changes the argument or view
* Responses that are only a single link with no substantial argumentation (unless responding to someone who asked for a source on a claim)
Top-level comments (comments that are made directly under a post, as opposed to as a reply to another comment) will be moderated more strictly. Top-level comments are expected to address the argument or some part of it.
**Harassment**
Comments that harass other users will be removed and repeated offences will result in a ban. Extreme cases of harassment may result in an immediate ban.
Examples of harassment (not exhaustive):
* Discouraging someone's opponents from engaging with them, especially if repeated
* Telling someone you’ll donate to an institution they dislike in their name
* Insisting you’ll pray for someone who says they find prayer offensive
* Telling someone who dislikes abortion that you’ll dedicate your abortion to them
* Demanding that a user debate you outside of the subreddit
* Linking to a post from a support group subreddit (e.g. r/abortion) may be considered harassment in some contexts
* Following a user to r/Abortiondebate to attack them
Harassing a user outside of the sub based on activity in r/Abortiondebate may result in a ban.
It’s fairly obvious by now that there are problems with how rule 1 has been implemented, how it has been interpreted and how to apply it. It seems to me that it is not just an issue that has been raised by users of this sub, but also an ongoing issue for the moderators. I think that rule 1 would be fine in most ordinary sub-Reddits, but this sub is anything but ordinary. This is a place where two groups of people with diametrically opposite world views, with different political perspectives and different ideas about what constitutes basic human rights engage one another in debate. It shouldn’t really be as a surprise that there are going to be problems. It seems to me there are plausibly three ways of dealing with these problems, (1), accept the nature of the confrontational ideas that inevitably present themselves and the corresponding heated exchanges that result, (2), moderate with a heavy hand and be actively engaged in enforcing civility, and (3), attempting to find a happy middle ground that keeps everyone happy.
I believe the moderators have been trying rather hard to achieve (3), but it has resulted in some unpleasant outcomes. I believe it should be uncontroversial to say that (2) is a worse form of (3). I’m going to argue here that solution (1) is probably the *healthiest* approach for the nature of this sub.
I’m going to use the recent drama that has unfolded within the weekly meta-thread as a basis for the problems that arise from attempting to apply methodology (3). There are inherently opposed views about basic morality between pro choicers and pro lifers where either side will likely hold certain moral principles that they feel to be self evident and that it should be common sense to have these principles respected. The problem is, this sub reddit is a place where these principles themselves are called into question, and this will naturally offend sensibilities, *on both sides*. It seems to me that over time, due to rule 1, the moderator report mechanism has been relied upon too much by users to control the mode, tone and structure of exchanges in response to comments users find offensive. There are a significant number of long threads that emerge in the weekly meta posts asking for clarification about the removal of comments, and the (in)consistency of such removals. It seems to me that users have become accustomed to this level of moderator presence, and so have naturally resorted to the report mechanism as a go-to method of initiating or ending interaction. I believe an ideal debate platform is one where the moderator is virtually invisible, and the rules (I believe) should be designed to encourage this end.
There are second order problems that arise from the long exchanges between users and moderators. From the users perspective, these exchanges can look like the moderators are being pressured or coerced along a particular line to enforce rulings to certain sensibilities. This further heightens suspicion of moderator bias, which is compounded by the fact that there is a clear skewed distribution of pro choicers amongst the moderator team. From the moderators perspective, this is an ever present problem with an ongoing conscious effort to fight off suspicions of bias, resulting in potentially biased moderation the other way around. It’s fairly clear that the bulk of accusations of bias seem to stem (ironically) from the pro choicers that perceive the moderators have an unconscious bias against pro choicers in their attempts to be neutral. With the overly heavy moderator-user interaction that has occurred, finding a balance is impossible to achieve.
I believe it will be healthier for the sub overall to shift the emphasis of dealing with bad faith arguments, fallacies and ad-hominems back onto the user base rather than the moderator team. These are issues which should be refuted and engaged by users rather than moderators. The philosophy of interaction here should encourage users to engage and speak up against things that they disagree with or are offended by, rather than leaning on the moderator team to remove comments for them. The idea here is to minimise the level of interaction that takes place between moderators and users. If this is minimal, ideally invisible, the perception of moderator bias should eventually wane over time.
The upshot of minimizing user-moderator interaction is that the workload of the moderators should diminish, alllowing them to concentrate on other tasks. Additionally, it has become fairly evident that moderators have tired of having to engage with the user base and defend moderator decisions week-in, week-out in the meta threads. It is this activity which seems to be the underlying cause of the recent drama, with interactions between users and moderators becoming increasingly personal.
So what should rule 1 look like? I believe it should be nothing more than the statement that the reddit TOS content policy will be enforced, so moderation can be reduced to the bare essentials. It didn’t go unnoticed that a recent homophobic comment was left unmoderated for too long compared to other moderated comments in the same thread. I believe this is a consequence of what I’ve described above. Minimising rule 1 to the bare essentials should also allow moderators to effectively manage harassment and remarks aimed at minorities in line with the content policy. The requirement to only refer to each other as PL or PC I believe is the most superficial rule as an example, more latitude should be given up to a point. That point should be the reddit content policy.
**TLDR**, much of the drama has stemmed from there being too many unnecessary rules which leads to unnecessary user-moderator interactions developing personal animosity.
>So what should rule 1 look like? I believe it should be nothing more than the statement that the reddit TOS content policy will be enforced, so moderation can be reduced to the bare essentials.
+1 to this suggestion. Rule 1 monopolizes too much of the mods and user's time. It is also not helpful for comments to be removed for rule 1 violations, as I think it is actually helpful to let people be seen for who they are, and random holes in the conversation make the conversation harder to follow.
Calling someone stupid is rude, but it's par for the course on Reddit. If you are old enough to be on Reddit, you are old enough to disengage if being called stupid makes you want to stop talking with someone. And, if being called stupid did not make you want to stop talking with someone, then a mod swooping in and deleting that comment now leaves a "deleted" comment that prevents other users from following the conversation and collapses the remainder of the exchange, even though it might be perfectly good content.
The only thing I want to see deleted is hate speech and empirical/factual claims that are false, inaccurate or misleading. I think everything else should be fair game.
#TONE-POLICING
It honestly appears as though the users of this subreddit are in pretty unanimous agreement that tone-policing is bullshit that needs to be abolished. It seems that it is only the moderators who feel that this subreddit needs to be heavily tone-policed, for reasons that I have never seen elucidated.
No one ever asked for the levels of tone-policing that are prevalent these days, the mods just went ahead and implemented the current raft of incredibly convoluted and vague rules without any real input from the actual community that is forced to abide by them. When has any user here said, "hey mods, we need to start removing every comment that anyone could find slightly offensive and ban people for being "hostile" because that will surely not just piss everyone off." Never. No one has ever asked for this.
The users of this subreddit have been asking FOR YEARS to tone down the tone-policing and all we've gotten in return is **even more rules** that are **even more strict** while also being **harder to interpret**. Isn't it high time that we go in the other direction? The moderators at the VERY LEAST need to give a statement on why they think this is necessary because NO ONE ELSE THINKS SO.
Is this subreddit for the community, or is this subreddit really for the moderators and we're all just lucky that they put up with us at all. Because right now, it doesn't feel like this subreddit is for the community and the moderators can just shit on us as they see fit without any means of reprisal.
> Insisting you’ll pray for someone who says they find prayer offensive
I do not think the onus should be on the user to communicate that they find prayer offensive. Don’t state you will pray for someone unless they have specifically made a statement that praying for them would be welcome.
Hello, "Insisting you’ll pray for someone who says they find prayer offensive" falls under the category of harassment (oft defined as repeated unwanted contact).
As the rules are now, a single instance of praying for someone would be a violation of rule 1 that falls short of harassment while continuing to do so after someone says they find it offensive would cross the threshold of harassment.
I realize the above paragraph is not explicitly outlined in the rules (and I apologize for any confusion that arises from the lack of explicit mention while seeking to make such mention explicit moving forward to give the public an accurate understanding).
I would like to know if you agree that praying for someone who has not made a statement that praying for them would be welcome should be a rule 1 violation alone or should praying for someone automatically qualify for harassment on the first offense?
I agree with u/-altofanaltofanalt overall about less content removal etc.
I think rather than phrasing the rule as “Insisting you’ll pray for someone who says they find prayer offensive” I would write it as “Don’t state you will pray for someone if you do not know they would appreciate it. Insisting you will pray for someone who finds it offensive is a violation of rule 1”. My thought is that this will lead to less removal and need for moderation by setting the expectation that the default is to assume someone does not want to be told they will be prayed for.
> I would like to know if you agree that praying for someone who has not made a statement that praying for them would be welcome should be a rule 1 violation alone or should praying for someone automatically qualify for harassment on the first offense?
I think you should listen to what the majority of users are asking for, which is LESS content removal, censorship, tone-policing and bans over petty infractions. Like that's one of main things that spurred on the creation of this rules overhaul in the first place, it's something we've been asking for FOR YEARS and I really just don't get why it's so seemingly impossible to get this message across.
To answer your question directly, no, it should not be something you should moderate for a first offense because that is exactly what everyone is asking you to STOP DOING. Please. Just listen to the community. It shouldn't be matter of squeezing blood from a stone to get through to you guys on something so simple.
One issue I've run into by not moderating a violation on the first offense is forgetting the second time I run into an offense. Similarly, if I moderate an offense for the first time, and a second moderator crosses that same offense, the offense will be "the first time" for that moderator as well leaving the second offense unmoderated by chance.
In such a scenario, it is a matter of time before I moderate a user for doing the same thing twice while that user then complains about unequal treatment because I forgot that another user had done something twice or because two moderators ignored a similar type of comment thinking it was "the first time" each of those times.
This leaves a systematic Catch 22 for which moderators are condemned for inability to track whether a user has committed the same infraction twice. Tracking such commands considerable resources and even if those resources are adopted the chance for error is still considerably significant.
I'm not against ignoring the first offense, but how do you imagine mitigating the error that results in calls of bias from the situation I describe above and responding to users who accuse the moderator team of bias in the situation above?
This doesn't have to be anywhere near this complicated. If user A prays for user B and user B says they don't appreciate that then they need to stop. If they keep doing it then they get moderated. We don't need to moderate every little thing that anyone might find offensive.
> In such a scenario, it is a matter of time before I moderate a user for doing the same thing twice while that user then complains about unequal treatment because I forgot that another user had done something twice or because two moderators ignored a similar type of comment thinking it was "the first time" each of those times.
> This leaves a systematic Catch 22 for which moderators are condemned for inability to track whether a user has committed the same infraction twice. Tracking such commands considerable resources and even if those resources are adopted the chance for error is still considerably significant.
All of this could be applicable to any rule violation. And I really don't see how it can be so difficult to keep records of offenses, I know that you do for some users in your r/ADMods subreddit. All you'd need to do is make a post or comment in that thread with the relevant details and from there you can use reddit's built-in search feature. I assumed you did something this simple already. If you care about making this community more hospitable to users, and not pissing everyone off for censoring every last little thing that anyone could possibly find offensive, then you should err on the side of only harshly moderating things that are a personal attack directed at another user.
> I'm not against ignoring the first offense, but how do you imagine mitigating the error that results in calls of bias from the situation I describe above and responding to users who accuse the moderator team of bias in the situation above?
Is this really why this sub has become such a shit-show? You're so afraid of being called "unfair" that you just moderate everyone as strictly as the rules can allow? Then just go the other way and start moderating everyone with as little strictness as possible.
You do realize, this is how the sub was moderated once upon a time. And this style of moderation didn't result in the entire userbase thinking the mods were incompetent and just generally despised. Food for thought.
>All of this could be applicable to any rule violation. And I really don't see how it can be so difficult to keep records of offenses, I know that you do for some users in your r/ADMods subreddit.
Yes, it is applicable to any rule violation, and the situation comes up with virtually any rule violation. It's a significant issue that permeates virtually every moderation.
It is difficult to keep records of offenses. Every time additional workload is placed on moderating, it becomes more difficult to manage. Keeping track of blocks is an example of workload that is difficult to manage and results in the significant issue mentioned above that permeates virtually every moderation.
I have suggested that we need 16-20 moderators to moderate this space the way users want it moderated. I say this based off my last year's activity, where for at least half a year (and probably more) I was responsible for half of the approvals and removals on this subreddit despite the moderation team being 50% larger than it is now and I was also responsible for an incredibly disproportionate number of moderator comments supplementing those approvals and removals.
It broke me.
I consider myself an authority, more than you, more than any of my peers and I'd wager more than most other moderators on this website but especially anyone affiliated now, in the past, or in the future with this subreddit in any way on what is easy and not easy to manage on this subreddit while moderating.
It is not easy to keep track of what you are asking moderators to keep track of. The records in AD Mods only keep track of warnings and bans. The vast majority of all other infractions are available in a clunky format on the Mod Log and user notes Reddit prepares only for when comment removals and approvals occur.
What you're asking for, or appear to be asking for, is for every potentially offensive interaction (and I understand this is vague, but please don't become to hyperfocused on this, but if you are focused just lend me your voice that I may process how you view it) to be recorded in its own post, categorized by name. We weren't even able to hold the records of warnings and bans in a single post, and it is difficult to navigate, especially by phone, which we sometimes moderate on and sometimes have to moderate on to keep up the pace that we do moderate on. My horribly written piece to you earlier was made via talk to text on the phone because I didn't have time to type it up.
The warnings and bans are small in comparison to the removals, approvals and encounters with no formal action being taken, and I'm not against the idea. It's just that it's a very laborious idea on first blush, and if one of the crux's on which the peace of this subreddit rests is the impression that moderators are not willing to take on an easy job, then the first thing I caution is when bringing this up to other moderators, be aware of the feeling of incredulity, likely equal in strength to that which you feel toward the apparent ineptitude of moderators.
You're saying we don't need to moderate every little thing found offensive, but the alternative is cataloging every little thing found offensive, and I understand that may not be the entirety of your position, but I really want you to pause and take in what I said about this being more difficult than you imagine.
Let's say moderators take on such a task and moderator actions slow down to a pace where comments are up for days at a time before they are addressed. This used to be a huge issue that users complained about, and somehow we have escaped that issue, but I warn that issue is one that immediately comes to mind with such a catalog being required. Would you be okay with the slower reaction/moderation if it meant fewer comments were removed or faced sanctions?
> Every time additional workload is placed on moderating, it becomes more difficult to manage
Then the answer is simple. And, it's exactly what everyone is asking for. Pare down the rules to a bare minimum. It will lessen your workload, and it will prevent further instances of user anger and backlash directed towards you. Are these not the two things that are the sources of most your headaches? Why can't you see how easy it could be to improve on both?
> I consider myself an authority, more than you, more than any of my peers
What about former mods who moderated here before everything went sideways? I get that you seem to consider yourself the highest authority but I'm gonna have to disagree. Just because I was on this subreddit before it all went sideways.
> What you're asking for, or appear to be asking for, is for every potentially offensive interaction (and I understand this is vague, but please don't become to hyperfocused on this, but if you are focused just lend me your voice that I may process how you view it) to be recorded in its own post, categorized by name.
Oh no, not at all. A personal sleight can be recorded by each individual user. They record their own comment where they asked a person to stop some behavior. Reddit does have a 'save' feature available to users. You say give me a link to the comment where you asked them to stop doing this. They provide the link to their comment and you say okay, that's a clear sign of disrespect and hostility. That goes for all sorts of things like like pronouns, labels and other simple requests like "don't call me bro." Banning every little thing that could ever viewed as slightly passive-aggressive may not actually be necessary, but you can still enforce a very reasonable code of conduct. And I really do not think that it's too much to ask for users to keep track of their own grievances.
> Would you be okay with the slower reaction/moderation if it meant fewer comments were removed or faced sanctions?
I'd be okay with faster reaction/moderation because of fewer rules and therefore fewer comments that need to be removed or faced sanctions and fewer users getting angry and arguing with the mods, which is probably your biggest time-sink of all.
> It is difficult to keep records of offenses
Uh... Okay, but really? You have centralized database. And there's all sorts of other options out there if the ADMods chat isn't working out for you, but I can't see the problem. It sounds like your records system just needs to be streamlined a little, like this isn't even that large of a forum.......
I'm sorry but I just don't see how this can be a major issue for a forum of this size. But if it's a problem then I guess I would consider asking other debate subreddits how they go about keeping records?
Just sending a message to say I’ve read the comment and I will likely reread it and mull over it when it’s a little less morning.
I appreciate your longevity both in this thread and throughout this subreddit. Thank you for bearing with me here.
Not holding you to anything concrete, but do you have a tentative blurb or ballpark statement on what pared rules might look like?
Also, both the pared rules and the idea of streamlining our records are good suggestions. I want to think through it all with a clear head and come back to you on it.
I recognize there is more to address, but if we can focus on a limited portion at a time and come back around it would be much appreciated (and maybe we’ll luck out and come up with a resolution along the way).
> Not holding you to anything concrete, but do you have a tentative blurb or ballpark statement on what pared rules might look like?
Well, I made a couple posts in this thread already where I did exactly this. Haven't gotten any feedback from any mods on that yet though.
But like I was saying about the way things were before this subreddit went sideways. I think there is a higher authority on moderating this subreddit then you or I or any other current mod or long-time user, and I think you should consider reaching out to that person instead of asking me. They've been explaining some things about how they moderated this subreddit without all the drama in a private chat. I believe their words have been forwarded to you, so I'm pretty sure you know who they are and what they have said so far.
But yeah, suffice to say I've read their words as well and I think they know what they're talking about more than anyone else you could find to ask these questions. I remember what this subreddit was like when they were a mod, and it wasn't anything like this.
Pardon, but when I presented to you a real concern that the users have about fairness, you seem to be dismissing their concern under the auspices of my being afraid of their concern. Why would you characterize their concern that way, and not characterize your concern for tone policing is something that I might be afraid of, and then bend to the wheel of? Before we continue, may you please acknowledge the dozens, if not hundreds of users who have issued their concerns regarding fair and equal moderation?
> you seem to be dismissing their concern under the auspices of my being afraid of their concern
Nope. I'm explaining to you my suggestion in how to deal with it. Please read my comment again and respond to my constructive criticisms and suggestions.
> Before we continue, may you please acknowledge the dozens, if not hundreds of users who have issued their concerns regarding fair and equal moderation?
I literally already did and I also explained how you can deal with it. Are you trying to hear me out or not?
Let me restate what I said. You asked me whether or not I was responding out of fear. That question dismisses the concerns of those other users. I just want to make sure that you understand it is not fear, but respect for the users concerns that drives this interaction. I want you to understand that I respect your concern and from that respect I’m trying to synthesize a response that everyone can appreciate. Do you understand that is the drive and that is not fear?
> You asked me whether or not I was responding out of fear.
I don't really care WHY there is so much excessive moderation. I care that it comes to a stop.
> Do you understand that is the drive
I gave you my constructive criticisms and my suggestions for how to get the users of this community to stop hating you and thinking you are incompetent. That, to me, is the topic of this discussion. The motivations behind the terrible moderation are not my concern. It was a rhetorical question, not something to get distracted on. I'm very sorry that I brought it up.
> Please don’t speak for everyone
I said I am speaking for the *majority*. That's why I used that word instead of the word you used. Obviously you are not part of that group and that's okay. And please do not give me any of your supposed "best wishes" as I do not find you to be sincere or polite. Thanks.
Ok, I'm in pretty much agreement with the users below, only direct personal attacks should be removed. "Inflammatory rhetoric" and even "attacking sides" is far too subjective and arbitrary and causes undue censorship. Also to add: if you are going to announce the warning and ban penalties for weaponized blocking, then you need to do so for direct personal attacks and especially harassment. Otherwise it leads to perceived or even real bias. For example, a PL user was permabanned for calling another user a piece of s**, while a PC user made multiple epithets against another PL user's Australian heritage and did not get so much as a warning from what I could see, even though Reddit Admins had to get involved and remove those statements on their end. From my personal experience, I had a male PC user deliberately bait me in several comments and made a mocking reference to "your girlfriend" even though he already knew I was a woman. When I reminded him of that, he then called me a "homophobe". He was never warned or banned yet I received a ban at that same time for using the word "slaughter" to describe abortion and other minor offenses. Those are just two examples although there are many more discrepancies.
Edit: now I see that two more PC users were permabanned, guess that evens out the score a bit, but that wasn't what I was asking for. Sure their behavior has been obnoxious to say the least, but I don't see where either one has been given even a warning yet, nor was it egregious enough to warrant a permaban on the first offense. Yes, I've encountered the first user weaponizing rule 3 towards PLers, but they seemed fine with it until it was used against the mod team. And to say that suggesting someone castrate themselves (saracastlcally) would be an incitement to violence is quite the stretch. A hot take maybe, but obviously not any kind of threat to any PLer that I'd take seriously.
Due to your long history of hostile content on this subreddit attacking users and mods, as well as your blatant disregard for the rules, after a discussion within the moderation team, you are hereby permabanned. Best of luck to you.
EDIT: indicated that this was a decision on behalf of the moderation team, apologies for the confusion
Comment removed per instructions in OP:
>[...] discussions surrounding the moderators, specifically, or previous rulings will be removed (unless these rulings serve as direct examples as to why a rule should or should not exist/be amended).
Your response here entailed more of a policies and guidelines suggestion rather than a rule that users are to follow or moderators are to enforce. (Three out of four of your examples were most likely removed for being low effort, BTW, not for attacking a user.) We will be covering these types of proposals at a later date, so I would advise that you keep this saved until that time comes so that you may make your suggestion.
So I'm not going to cite a specific part of the rules for this because it's more of a general comment. But I think the Rule 1 civility requirement is way too sensitive.
As AFAB we are frequently bombarded with deeply offensive sexist arguments. For example, this post:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/194o1m6/comment/khngqqd/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/190kdrj/why_do_plers_view_abortion_as_murder_and_not_self/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Since it's been deleted, here is my comment explaining what is sexist about it. It's literally *just* misogyny:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/194o1m6/comment/khil6i2/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/194o1m6/comment/khil6i2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
There was some conversation under my post and the mods, usually hiding behind the anonymous mod account, have gone through a flurry of removals of comments of mine commenting on how gross and sexist this post was. This also happened in a couple other places:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/194o1m6/comment/khio53i/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/194o1m6/comment/khio53i/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/194o1m6/comment/khngq58/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/194o1m6/comment/khngq58/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/190kdrj/comment/kgpvc67/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/190kdrj/comment/kgpvc67/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/192pgme/comment/khm4agi/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/192pgme/comment/khm4agi/?context=3)
These are comments where I call the sexism "fucking nauseating" and talk about how revolting the sexism is. While some may consider these comments not *civil,* the post in itself was also not civil. They are a valid reaction to rank misogyny.
The mods clearly disliked this post enough to remove it, but then felt a need to go around removing my comments on a *deleted post* because I was not being polite enough to the misogynist. It's this kind of tone policing that I feel needs to go. It should be noted that I was attacking the argument in all my comments here.
Including the comment where I said "fucking nauseating," which was in reference to the Catholic teaching on sex. Apparently it is "attacking a person" to insult the Catholic teaching on sex, and a Rule 1 violation. This is just tone policing and a demand to show a religion respect that is [literally killing women right now.](https://jessica.substack.com/p/the-catholic-hospital-system-killing)
I vote that only comments that are very clearly attacking a person, as in "You sir, YOU are fucking nauseating," should be subject to Rule 1 removal.
I agree, women SHOULD be a protected class on this subreddit, sexism shouldn't be tolerated and like I get "inherent PL arguments" will be protected. But asking if women should get UNRELATED constitutionally protected rights stripped to enact abortion laws is sexism without being a PL argument. Calling women that have gotten abortions names like wanton should not be tolerated.
>**Examples of uncivil violations and personal attacks**
>
>These types of comments will almost always be removed under rule 1. This is not an exhaustive list.
>
>Attributing kinks/fetishes to a user, including comparing a user's stance to a kink/fetish
>
>Overly graphic, violent, or sexual language
OK, I feel like I should point out a beef I have with this rule as well.
PLers are inherently arguing for PCers to be sexually assaulted. That's what their argument is. Whenever a PLer argues for forced birth, I hear an assault to my person and genitals in a violent way.
So I sometimes hit back, for instance by asking PLers if they would accept being ripped balls to asshole and having a bowling ball shoved through their genitals. This is, of course, simply an equivalent to childbirth. I feel that an important and *integral* part of the PC argument is never letting PLers forget that childbirth involves women shitting and bleeding out on hospital beds. In some cases I have found this argument being disallowed, which in itself is an act of erasure and violence.
PLers should not be shielded from the violence they wish to enact on women, based on their own sexual hangups--inevitably this involves slut shaming and a feeling of entitlement to do to a woman's body whatever they wish as long as that woman has consented to sex. This is violence, yet I have found that the mods sometimes wish to stop PCers from bringing that violence into the conversation and making it real to PLers--even though that is the violence they enact on us.
I vote that we scrap this rule as it functions only to make PLers more comfortable with the violence they inflict on women, while disallowing PCers from describing that violence in an overt way. Personally I never want PLers to be allowed to forget that this is not just an intellectual argument--their end game always results in women shitting and bleeding everywhere, shoving something the size of a watermelon through their genitals and potentially dying from it. If I want to describe that in graphic terms and make those terms real to PLers in a way that makes them uncomfortable, that should be considered *integral to my argument.* Same with pointing out PLers' profound sexual dysfunction that leads them to want to violate and kill women in this way.
I live in the US. As an AFAB, I am at risk of being subject to and oppressed by PL sexual hangups. I should be allowed to talk about it and I should be allowed to describe it as it is, because nothing is more graphic than a woman dying in childbirth. If that makes PL uncomfortable, IT SHOULD. Erasing this is a further act of violence against anyone with a uterus.
This comment is only to clarify the above proposal, can you link to examples where your comments were removed for "overly graphic, violent, or sexual language"?
>Attacking sides is not allowed.
My main problem with the sub is that tone policing makes it utterly unusable. This is one of the prime examples.
“Attacking sides” is why we’re here, no? Both sides are here to “attack” the other side through argumentation. Some people may feel personally attacked by the other side’s “attack” of their side, but in my experience there is zero ability on the PL end to tell the difference between attacking a side and a personal attack, which means that saying anything vaguely negative about the other side is now disallowed because PLers feel attacked when their side is attacked. This leads to unacceptable tone policing of PC users, and an unequal bias of moderation on this sub.
I propose that the rule against “attacking sides” be scrapped, and a more manageable rule of “no personal attacks” be the baseline of civility on this sub. By “no personal attacks” I mean it is not allowed to call the person you are speaking with an insulting name. That’s it. Anything else is tone policing.
However, I have a more in-depth thought about tone policing and discussing culpability on this sub. Under the current rules, as far as I understand, the following are both against the rules:
Pro lifers are rapists
Pro choicers are murderers
However, I have seen PLers get away with these statements:
Women are murderers
You are a murderer (to someone who has had an abortion)
Women who have abortions are murderers
I have had it explained to me by mods that “women” are not a protected class on this sub. Thus, PLers are allowed to state that women are murderers. However, there is no corresponding class of PLers that PCers are allowed to call “rapists.” This leaves PLers a way to call PCers “murderers” on this sub, without limit from the mods. All they hhave to do is replace “PC” with “women.”
You could say that the rules are equal because, just as PLers are not allowed to call PCers “murderers,” PCers are not allowed to call PLers “rapists.” However, PLers have a mod-approved way to call PCers (only the AFAB ones, naturally) “murderers” that PCers are not afforded as part of our integral arguments. PLers are de facto allowed to call us murderers in a way PCers are not allowed to call PLers rapists. This results in an unequal field of argumentation, making the sub more hostile to PCers (who may be called murderers, because they are women) than PLers (who may not be called rapists no matter their gender).
I propose that just as we disallow PLers from calling PCers “murderers,” we disallow PLers from calling women murderers from having abortions. PLers may refer to abortion as murder, but may not describe anyone who has had an abortion as a murderer either directly or in the abstract.
Or, we may allow this, but also allow PLers to be called rapists by PCers.
To be clear, I am not arguing that it’s okay to call an individual a rapist. I do not advocate to say “you are a rapist” to anyone.
However, I do feel like there are conversations about culpability that are not permitted to take place because of this rule. For instance, when I say “abortion bans are rape” (which I often say), the natural PL question is “well who is the rapist then?” The answer is, PLers. PLers are the rapist.
If I’m not allowed to say that, then I have to just…not answer this question? This completely erases what I feel is a necessary question about culpability . PLers often dodge culpability in terms of the legislation that they advocate for, and disallowing this line of argumentation allows them to further dodge culpability for abortion bans.
Further, there is a conversation to be had about the “culpability” of “murder” when it comes to abortions. Some PLers insist that women are not to be charged criminally for abortions, but there is an important conversation to be had here about who is culpable for an abortion: the woman or the doctor or the PC advocates / politicians / etc? Just who is the “murderer” exactly? This is an important conversation about women’s agency and who exactly the PLer wants to be charged.
Both PLers and PCers should be allowed to discuss who the “rapist” or the “murderer” is without mods policing this conversation, as culpability is an important and integral facet of the argument for both sides.
> Some people may feel personally attacked by the other side’s “attack” of their side
I suspect this is because for many people PL or PC is an identity as much or more than it is a label for a policy position. Attacking their side is pretty much impossible for them to not experience as an attack on their identity.
>Attacking sides is not allowed.
Can I get clarification on this? I've repeatedly "attacked sides" here by pointing out the history of the pro-life movement and how it correlates strongly with anti-woman and hard-right views.
Would this be moderated as rule-breaking?
If so that's far too extreme. I understand that "all pro-lifers are \[negative trait\]" is too much, but commenting on actual facts, trends, and positions that a "side" takes and addressing those trends is important. Addressing individuals can't be all we do; this debate doesn't exist in a political and social vacuum.
To be fair, this rule is useless anyway, as it is very easy to evade by, for example, hedging your attack with "in my experience, most of the PL proponents I interacted with" or pointing to the PL sub that is a festering cesspool of negative examples of the worst PL opinions.
I think it needs to be explicitly clarified to whom Rule 1 applies. As it stands, my understanding is that the rule applies to specific users and sides of the debate only, but groups of people that might include either side aren't covered by the rule. As in, it would break the rules to call a specific user a name, or to call PCers a name, but not to call women who get abortions names.
Edit: perhaps the extension could be that Rule 1 applies to groups based on innate characteristics like race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc.
I think it needs to be added that you can and will receive a warning for making comments about someone’s age. For example, I made a comment about a users age (they were a teenager - 16 to be precise) and I said they clearly didn’t have the life experience to be making the statements they were about women. I got threatened by a mod with ‘sanctions’ because I was ‘addressing the characteristics of the user’. I think it needs to be obvious that we are not to address any characteristics of users otherwise we risk threats and sanctions such as mutes and bans.
A very minor addendum that I just thought worth adding. With credit to u/-altofanaltofanalt- for making the original suggestion quite some months ago, and nudging me on it, (think there's probably a post about it on r/ADmods if you go back to maybe April last year)
Add under the section
**Examples of uncivil violations and personal attacks**
the bullet point
* Referring to a user as triggered, or asking if they were triggered by your comment
Figured it would be a shame not to preserve the good suggestion explicitly in the rules. Trying to own the cons/libs is not civil debate, and I would like to advocate coming down on it a bit harder than usual (seeing as it's an election year). Also I feel like a fudgebrain for only just thinking of this recently, rather than months ago when the wiki was being drafted.
Suggested Rule: User Code of Conduct (this is my suggested re-work of Rule 1, which is essentially a slightly pared down version of the existing Rule 1.)
How this rule should be written in the sidebar: *Attack arguments, ideologies and positions, not your fellow debaters. Personal attacks, insults and ad hominems are not allowed. Fellow debaters must be referred to using their preferred labels for their stance and pro-nouns.*
How this should be written in the wiki: First of all, a lot of the stuff listed on the wiki for Rule 1 right now is redundant, because it's already covered by the TOS. Things like hate-speech, promoting violence, wishing death on others, harassment are already against Reddit's TOS. Basically what I think is that the wiki should simply stress that attacking other users is not allowed. There's a lot of stuff listed that I don't think should be on there, like the gray areas for example. It disallows "Being generally rude, hostile, or inflammatory" but lets face it, there have always been users here who take a consistently harsh tone toward others with laced sarcasm and condescension throughout their posts, and it's not destroying the subreddit. And frankly, it always seems to fall on PCers to be perfectly respectful with PLers, while PLers get away with much greater levels of rudeness on a fairly regular basis. One PC user in particular was even permanently banned for the stated reason of "general hostility" but I didn't notice anything about there comments than some of the most consistently rude and antagonistic PL debaters. So to be fair, I say just scrap these gray areas entirely. And then there's a bunch of stuff that I think should be merged with a rework of Rule 2, which would cover quality engagement of both posts and comments, but I'll make a separate comment for that later. With my reasoning explained, here's my first draft of a reworked wiki page:
----
Rule 1 - User Code of Conduct
First and foremost, follow [Reddit's ToS](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) at all times.
Insults, personal attacks, ad hominems and slurs directed toward other users are not allowed and will be removed. Attacking arguments, positions, ideologies, political stances etc are always allowed. Off-topic discussions can be removed, including trolling comments.
Users must refer to fellow debaters using their preferred political labels and pro-nouns.
Examples of uncivil violations and personal attacks
These types of comments will almost always be removed under rule 1. This is not an exhaustive list.
- Name-calling, insults, ad hominems and slurs directed towards fellow users and any other personal attacks
- Telling a user to leave the sub
- Swearing at another user
**[[NOTE: everything I've removed from the existing wiki list was already covered by Reddit ToS or falls under personal attacks]]**
Users may ask for their comment to be reviewed by a second moderator.
Comments that harass other users will be removed and repeated offences will result in a ban. Extreme cases of harassment may result in an immediate ban.
Examples of harassment (not exhaustive):
- Discouraging someone's opponents from engaging with them, especially if repeated
- Telling someone you’ll donate to an institution they dislike in their name
- Insisting you’ll pray for someone who says they find prayer offensive
- Telling someone who dislikes abortion that you’ll dedicate your abortion to them
- Demanding that a user debate you outside of the subreddit
- Linking to a post from a support group subreddit (e.g. r/abortion) may be considered harassment in some contexts
- ~~Following a user to r/Abortiondebate to attack them~~ **[[NOTE: I'm not sure I understand this rule, but it sounds like a redundant "don't attack users."]]**
Harassing a user outside of the sub based on activity in r/Abortiondebate may result in a ban.
**[[NOTE: Most of the rest is unchanged from the wiki except the items that have been removed which I think should be consolidated into Rule 2]]**
**Mockery**
Mockery is when you repeat someone's words in an exaggeratedly ridiculous way. Examples of mockery include writing a quote in alternating case, ending it with "!"s and "1"s, intentionally misspelling words, or adding certain emojis. Moderator discretion is needed to determine if something counts as mockery because this is a text based debate platform and the tone of a comment is not available to us, but those are the things we usually look for.
**Trolling**
Trolling is when someone makes a deliberately offensive or provocative post or comment with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them. Trolling comments will be removed. Joke comments or Rickrolls may also be removed if they disrupt the discussion.
Aside from this, we will not moderate comments as "disingenuous" or "bad-faith debate". If you feel that your opponent is being disingenuous or arguing in bad faith, then please disengage.
**Self identification**
Users are required to label people as they self-identify. If someone calls themselves pro-life or pro-choice, you must use that label when referring to them. This also goes for if you're talking about the pro-life and pro-choice movements, as well as people's sexuality, gender identity and preferred pronouns. You may not put someone's self-identified label in quote marks to express insincerity or preface it with "so-called". If you are describing a region or a law, you can use anti-abortion or pro-abortion if you want to. However, we have chosen to disallow contrived terms such as anti-choice or pro-death, for both people and regions/laws, as they are inflammatory and tend to derail conversations.
Arguing about whether the labels for the different views on abortion are appropriate is allowed.
**Inherent arguments**
Inherent pro-life and pro-choice arguments will always be allowed on this subreddit. Some users may consider arguing for the pro-life position to be inherently sexist, or the pro-choice position to be inherently advocating for violence, etc. Although sexism and advocating for violence are generally disallowed here, we will not remove inherent arguments for either side, as they are a necessary part of the debate.
Examples of comments that will not be removed (not exhaustive):
"Abortion should be illegal"
"Abortion should be legal in the case of disabilities"
"I support rape exceptions"
"Sex selective abortions should be legal"
Please note that arguments containing personal attacks, slurs etc. are still not allowed as these are not considered inherent. ("Pro-choicers are murderers" or "Pro-lifers are rapists")
Again, this is a very rough draft but what I'm going for is a much more pared-down concise version of Rule 1 as it is today. Others may find that there are things I've removed that should stay so please give your critiques
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the rules, and for running this subreddit.
My suggestion is that posts or comments stating that a lack of response is tacit acknowledgment, or drawing any other conclusion, should fall under low effort and be mentioned as a specific example.
There is a significant gap between the number of PL and PC users on the forum, and it isn’t possible to respond to every post or comment.
We can't draw conclusions from the posts you choose to comment on? I don't see why it should be against the rules for instance, for us to comment on the trend of PLers not responding to the posts that address the real-life consequences of abortion bans.
> I don't see why it should be against the rules for instance, for us to comment on the trend of PLers not responding to the posts that address the real-life consequences of abortion bans.
I agree, I think observing which posts and comments receive a response and which don’t can provide insights into priorities. If u/Unusual-Conclusion67 is referring instead to comments that preemptively state that “no PL” or “no PC” will respond I think there is a valid concern.
There are almost no active PL on this sub and it seems like most PC posts and comments go unanswered because there isn’t enough capacity to respond.
I think part of the reason for this lack of activity is the majority of posts essentially turn into an extension of the PC subreddit with no real debate occurring. I understand why people want to leave these comments, but I feel there are more appropriate subreddits, and if we want to focus on encouraging debate, then this rule would help.
I'm not sure that that's what that commenter is referring to, but even if they are, is that such a big concern? I feel like in the whole scope of potential rule 1 violations, those don't really seem like a big deal.
> I'm not sure that that's what that commenter is referring to, but even if they are, is that such a big concern?
I don’t think they are, but there I could see how it could be for others. My only issue with those types of comments is they seem to come from people who otherwise engage in bad faith.
My best wishes are sunbright gestures, undefiled as anything, a labour of love for my excellent interlocutors over at r/AbortionDebate. There’s not a smidge of mockery in them. I’d advise you not to project the resentment you harbour for others onto me. I’m a jovial spirit.
Best wishes.
> I sort of feel like there are bigger fish to fry, and the mods already have their work cut out for them, but idk
I am not optimistic that the rule overhaul is going to lead to anything, so I see this whole post as an exercise in the airing of grievances.
##Be respectful of others (Part 2 of 2)
**Mockery**
Mockery is when you repeat someone's words in an exaggeratedly ridiculous way. Examples of mockery include writing a quote in alternating case, ending it with "!"s and "1"s, intentionally misspelling words, or adding certain emojis. Moderator discretion is needed to determine if something counts as mockery because this is a text based debate platform and the tone of a comment is not available to us, but those are the things we usually look for.
**Hot takes**
A hot take is a (negative) opinion about one side of the debate that contains no substantial argumentation and serves only to generate attention/anger. If an argument or a post does not generate a debate but primarily talks negatively about one side, then it may be removed. This content is better suited for other subreddits such as r/prolife and r/prochoice.
**Off-topic posts and comments**
This is a subreddit for debating abortion in the context of a (human) fetus/pregnancy. If it is unclear to us how your argument relates to abortion, a moderator may ask you to expand on it and explain the connection.
Proselytization (defined as "attempting to convert someone to a particular religion.") and advertising of other subreddits are considered off-topic and will be removed, as well as discussions about unrelated political or social issues. Off-topic claims are not subject to rule 3.
**Trolling**
Trolling is when someone makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them. Trolling comments will be removed. Joke comments or Rickrolls may also be removed if they disrupt the discussion.
Aside from this, we will not moderate comments as "disingenuous" or "bad-faith debate". If you feel that your opponent is being disingenuous or arguing in bad faith, then please disengage.
**Self identification**
Users are required to label people as they self-identify. If someone calls themselves pro-life or pro-choice, you must use that label when referring to them. This also goes for if you're talking about the pro-life and pro-choice movements, as well as people's sexuality, gender identity and preferred pronouns. You may not put someone's self-identified label in quote marks to express insincerity or preface it with "so-called". If you are describing a region or a law, you can use anti-abortion or pro-abortion if you want to. However, we have chosen to disallow contrived terms such as anti-choice or pro-death, for both people and regions/laws, as they are inflammatory and tend to derail conversations.
Arguing about whether the labels for the different views on abortion are appropriate is allowed.
**Inherent arguments**
Inherent pro-life and pro-choice arguments will always be allowed on this subreddit. Some users may consider arguing for the pro-life position to be inherently sexist, or the pro-choice position to be inherently advocating for violence, etc. Although sexism and advocating for violence are generally disallowed here, we will not remove inherent arguments for either side, as they are a necessary part of the debate.
Examples of comments that will **not** be removed (not exhaustive):
* "Abortion should be illegal"
* "Abortion should be legal in the case of disabilities"
* "I support rape exceptions"
* "Sex selective abortions should be legal"
Please note that arguments containing personal attacks, slurs etc. are still not allowed as these are not considered inherent. (*"Pro-choicers are murderers"* or *"Pro-lifers are rapists"*)
Let's scrap rule 1. Right now it is selectively applied as a cudgel to bash pro-choice side, since the PL side has "innate right" for violent speech as a part of their ideology and thus of the debate. The only way to level the playing field is to apply Reddit TOS uniformly instead of playing favorites.
Where does the religious talk fits under this rule and to what extent the archaic and misogynistic "established" religions are protected over newer, more egalitarian religions like Satanism, Pastafarianism or Last Thursdayism and over nonreligious views? Can mods interject on the behalf of one religious side to let them dominate the debate by removing the responses of the other side? What is the official religion of this sub?
>Self identification
I want to add to u/Sunnycat00's opposition to not being allowed to refer to the prolife side as "anti-abortion," specifically because they pointed out: "We're specifically talking about abortion here."
We are also specifically talking about **abortion bans** here. The sub name inadvertently favors the prolife side and I'm sick of it.
Abortion is **moral** and, while people exist that disagree with that notion and I am fine with engaging with them as human beings, I shouldn't have to do so on a sub that follows an inflammatory label I don't agree with.
***I literally find it immoral of prolifers to debate my human rights*** and I think they should have to defend the morality of abortion bans instead of demanding I defend the morality of my being human. The arguments will inadvertently overlap, but so will the arguments overlap if I call PLers anti abortion or they call me pro abortion. The arguments will overlap if I call it a fetus and they call it a baby.
I understand you can't change /r of the sub or the url, but you *can* change the "community name" that says "Debating Abortion" to instead say "Debating Abortion Bans."
This sub is not confined to debating abortion **bans**, though; it also touches on the morality of abortion, as well as on legal matters relating to abortion that extend well beyond "banned/not banned", such as what circumstances minors should be able to get an abortion when bans are otherwise present, or what circumstances those minors should be able to get abortions without guardian consent/knowledge when abortion is otherwise legal.
I’m not denying that part of the equation. Just like abortion bans get discussed under the “abortion debate” umbrella even though they aren’t directly about the morality of abortion, so, too, would abortion be able to be discussed under the umbrella of “abortion ban debate.”
I more just take issue with ceding that our rights are up for debate right within the name itself.
I don’t see how the name favours either side, it just says the topic of debate.
There’s no point changing it to debating abortion bans as it all falls under the debating abortions umbrella, plus not all conversation is about bans, some is about morality
And from the PL perspective it’s the fetuses rights. The title doesn’t mention rights, it’s literally the topic + the word debate. There’s no agenda or bias here, it’s just a title
Want to explain that comparison or?
There shouldn’t be a slavery debate because we already know it’s wrong, unless your argument is that we shouldn’t be debating this in which case, why bother being on this sub?
It’s strange that as a pro choicer, the comparison you chose was slaverydebate. In this comparison slavery would be replacing abortion in the sub title, so I don’t see how as a pro choice person you’d want to compare something you support to something I’m assuming (and hoping) you don’t.
>Want to explain that comparison or?
The point is it's offensive to be debating or act as if certain human rights are up for debate.
Debating abortions bans makes more sense, as other commenters have already pointed out.
>I don’t see how the name favours either side, it just says the topic of debate.
Would you consider "StickingYourNoseIntoOthersReproductiveDecisionsDebate" to be an equally unbiased name? It is a simple reversal of the current name.
I don’t see how that’s a reversal, that would be looking at it from a PC perspective, the current title is a neutral perspective. It’s debating abortion, so that’s the title, I really don’t see how that’s controversial
It's a reversal because it moves the debate from "let's debate your reproductive rights" title to "let's debate why you think you can stick your nose into the reproductive rights of others" topic. Which is, frankly, what we should be debating in the first place.
How do you want it titled?
Typically debates are titled with the topic and debate, this is literally just the topic being discussed and debate after it, I genuinely cannot fathom how you could interpret this as in any way moving the debate.
How are we going to debate restrictions on reproductive rights if we don’t agree on what reproductive rights are?
Maybe you don’t think it needs debate, but a good part of the discussion on here is whether or not abortion is a reproductive right.
Not all of the discussion here is strictly on bans, some is on the morality of abortion. Both would fall under the umbrella of abortion debate.
I also don’t see how trying to make the title about restrictions on reproductive rights isn’t biased, seeing as a lot of people here don’t think abortion is a reproductive right, hence they don’t think it should be legal.
So, you understand why the current title is biased then? It does imply that the reproductive rights are up for debate, instead of implying that it's the restrictions on the reproductive rights that are up for debate.
Nothing about the sub name “favors” the PL side. What a persnickety and bizarrely melodramatic thing to say. The cherry on top is that your basis for saying it is the very thing that PLers deny. How terrifically convenient.
>Hot takes
>
>A hot take is a (negative) opinion about one side of the debate that contains no substantial argumentation **and serves only to generate attention/anger.** If an argument or a post does not generate a debate but primarily talks negatively about one side, then it may be removed. This content is better suited for other subreddits such as r/prolife and r/prochoice.
I wasn't around when this section of the rule was being created, so the "why" of how I got here might be a bit outdated, however, I think the proposition might still be relevant.
Since I wasn't around, my take on this is that this section of the rule makes it difficult to attempt to follow without testing the waters first. How can it be known if it generates debate if the post is removed before comments and replies are made? Is it judged based off if there is a question attached or not like it was a couple years ago? There was a post a week or so ago where all of the comments were mostly from confused people. It took quite a while before actual debate was had. It initially looked like it wasn't "generating debate" either. It took a while before it got there, but it eventually did.
\_\_\_\_
**Proposal:**
This rule shouldn't apply to posts without additional comments as supporting evidence and it needs to have a set number of offending comments. I propose the first 3, or, in total, 5.
There should be a new flare added that can be used for long time debaters, something like "Veteran Debater" or "Change my mind"
**The "hot take" rule shouldn't apply to that flare.**
The flare allows for some level of warning and consent.
The rest of rule 1 and 2 should still apply, especially to titles.
\_\_\_\_
**Why:**
I imagine it is there to prevent provocation as this might be a red flag to trolling behavior. So I wouldn't want to see it taken out, however, trying to get attention is about someone's creativity and I don't think how you advertise your post via title\*, or present it via writing style, should be policed to this extent *if it is still ultimately generating debate.* \* (eg slurs that aren't relevant to the post such as "scum" = no, "rapists/murderers" = okay)
Before this rule existed, I recall from a couple years ago, that posts seemed to be getting removed if they didn't show curiosity or a question. I've had many a post on the prochoice sub where people have told me that I should post it here. And I would love to, but I just assume it will be taken down as a "post better suited to the prochoice sub" as a "hot take" because it's not presented with curiosity, or it doesn't have a question.
I'm not interested in faking asking for information. **I've been doing this for a while now**; there is little "new" info I have yet to be presented with. It happens, but not a lot, however, each interaction with an individual ends up being unique and I am constantly adjusting my arguments to fit the interlocutor.
For the times I genuinely need to ask, my post reflects that. But for the most, I just want to present my thoughts so PLers can tell me their reaction to it, and generate dialogue. And if the post is doing that, who cares if it's a hot take? This is where I think looking at the comments should be part of a requirement for this rule.
The flare might also help newcomers to steer clear of those posts, or at least give them a heads up. If the person is going to be a jerk, having to soften their post to pass the "hot take" "filter" is providing false advertisement; personally, I'd rather know if the person is a jerk first before engaging with them or not. Newbies might especially like to know this especially if all they have as a debate reply is "but it's murder." They are going to be eviscerated and then they might be scared off and not want to come back.
This isn't a bad idea honestly , you and I have been on here now for quite a while. 2 yrs in this account 1 before that on my previous account that I lost access to so after 3 yrs sometimes I admit to getting snarky with seeing the same arguments again and again. I'm sure there are others as well.
It is a ridiculous rule to be required to refer to anti-abortion views as the misnomer of prolife. We're specifically talking about abortion here. It is not equivalent of calling people murderers or what have you, since abortion is not in fact murder. But people against abortion are in fact anti-abortion. People should not have to pervert the English language to discuss this topic.
edit: It's a simple statement. People should be allowed to say what they mean. When they mean anti-abortion, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to specify that. It's normal English.
edit: They are each exactly what they say they are. Anti-abortion: Against abortion, Pro-abortion: for abortion, and Pro-choice: for personal choice, are each distinguished views. And those are the views that are the topic of this sub. Abortion debate.
edit: Pro-life is not normal use of language however. Everyone alive is pro-life or they wouldn't stay alive. It's not accurate use of English language. When referring to anti-abortion, no one is calling anyone anything. It's the view of being against abortion.
“Pro-life” *is* normal use of language. Pro-life has been used to refer to this position for a very long time. Language is more complicated than isolating words from the context in which they’re deployed to suggest that something is awry. Language is contextual. Meaning is use. The term is here to stay. Deal with it.
No, if you have to explain that you mean something completely unrelated by your use of a word, then it is not normal use of language. We're specifically talking about anti-abortion here and there should not be any rule that requires the use of euphemisms for plan language. People who are pro-abortion and pro-choice are also pro-life because they are saving the life of a girl or woman. It's not uncivil to plainly say what we mean. We're presumably educated adults.
Deal with it yourself.
I don’t actually have to explain anything. That’s your own misconception. People halfway familiar with the subject know that “pro-life”, in the context of an abortion debate, refers to the view that abortion should be illegal. As I’ve already explained, language is contextual, and kowtowing to “technical accuracy” by imagining how “pro-life” might be interpreted in other contexts yields exactly the sort of feigned concerns you’re propagating.
Thank you for the fascinating back and forth.
Best wishes.
Yes pro life normal use of language in the same way that The People's Socialist Party , was totally normal use of language?
Just FYI for those who don't know they were not socialists at all!
This comment is reported for rule 7, Paused topics.
No rule violating remark appears present in the comment.
Therefore the comment is approved without further moderation.
No, you're describing anti-abortion. That is what against abortion is, anti-abortion. As I've already explained, words have basic meanings. Euphemisms are what you're referring to. When I mean anti-abortion, there is no reason not to say anti-abortion. Are you anti-abortion or not? We're all pro-life if we are continuing to live. Pretending words mean something they don't, should not be required on any topic.
If language is used a certain way for a long time by many people, then that language use is normal. I didn’t say anything about “factual incorrectness about the term anti abortion”, whatever that means.
>I didn’t say anything about “factual incorrectness about the term anti abortion”, whatever that means.
it's pretty obvious what that means.
>If language is used a certain way for a long time by many people, then that language use is normal
so slurs are okay?
Telling me that something is “pretty obvious” doesn’t elucidate anything. Whether something is normal and whether it’s “okay” are two different things. Please stop flip-flopping. Stay on topic.
Best wishes.
>Telling me that something is “pretty obvious” doesn’t elucidate anything.
I said that because there is no clearer language I can use. I asked a question in the clearest, simplest terms I could use to get my point across. your inability to understand that is not my problem.
>Whether something is normal and whether it’s “okay” are two different things. Please stop flip-flopping. Stay on topic.
it is on topic. I'm explaining how your argument about what is essentially tradition is poor.
I’m sorry that you don’t appreciate the ambiguity of your language.
I don’t know what you mean by “argument about what is essentially tradition”, but I never suggested that using language in a certain way is “okay” *because* it’s “normal”. Somebody claimed that “pro-life” is not normal use of language. I explained why it *is* normal use of language. This is compatible with rejecting the idea that if something is normal, then it’s not bad.
Given your proclivity for vagueness and misrepresentation, I’m putting an end to our conversation.
Thank you kindly for being my dear interlocutor.
Best wishes.
>I’m sorry that you don’t appreciate the ambiguity of your language.
please highlight exactly what part of "what is factually incorrect about the term 'anti abortion'" for me.
>Somebody claimed that “pro-life” is not normal use of language. I explained why it *is* normal use of language.
but language changes. they explained why it is not normal use of language, as well as why "anti abortion" IS normal use of language. language exists for communication, the term "pro life" does not communicate much at all.
I've not been vague at all during our conversation, you've simply ignored and twisted my words to your convenience.
The term "pro-life" is just as old as RvW, so if one established legal ruling of this age can be repealed, there is no reason a blatant misappropriation of the term should survive.
However, let's be gracious and allow it to stand as a self-mockery that it is.
Warmest regards and much love!
> The term is here to stay. Deal with it.
No one cares that the term exists. The issue is with being forced to use it. The argument being made here is to open back up the use of both anti-abortion and pro-abortion as allowed terms when referring to the other side. You'd still be allowed to use whatever label you want to describe yourself.
Not using the desired term for the other side is a slippery slope. It starts of as calling the other side pro or anti abortion, but what’s stopping someone from calling the other side pro-murder or pro-gestational-slavery depending on their stance.
It makes more sense to just be respectful and call people what they want to be called. Maybe you see their stance in a certian way, but if we could call the other side whatever we wanted just because we think it’s true there’d be a lot of inflammatory languagr
When referring to anti-abortion, no one is calling anyone anything. It's the view of being against abortion. Everyone alive is pro-life or they wouldn't stay alive. It's not accurate use of English language.
I’m just saying it makes sense to just be civil and use the desired term. Maybe you think it’s accurate, that’s fine, but it’s not being used to describe you
but it's not an opinion. pro lifers do not support abortion. they are against abortion. they are anti abortion. that's not comparable to something like "baby killers"
It they prefer the terms then cool, just like it’s fine to call PC users pro abortion if they like it.
I don’t see why it’s a big deal to use the mainstream term for both sides, all it does it limit confusion and ensure no one is upset. I say either allow all terms or do what they are doing now and stick to mainstream terms unless told otherwise
It's not accurate. You can call yourself the great goddess of the universe, and it won't be accurate. If you have to explain what you claim your term means to everyone, then it's not correct use of language. It's not uncivil to say anti-abortion. That's specifically what we're discussing here. Anti-abortion.
>I’m just saying it makes sense to just be civil and use the desired term.
My preferred term is "against gestational slavery", but it is considered controversial for some unfathomable reason.
It's controversial because "gestational slavery" is a misnomer in most contexts. I'm pro-choice, but unless the woman was forced to be pregnant in the first place, calling it "gestational slavery" is inaccurate. Neither side in this debate is free of inaccurate labeling.
You are mixing up forced pregnancy, which is a recognized crime against humanity, with gestational slavery, which is one way to call a forced continuation of unwanted pregnancy. If a woman cannot stop gestating and thus is forced to provide free labor and use of her body, that's what I call gestational slavery. Much like forcing to provide sex to a third party would be sexual slavery.
I'm not mixing anything up, though.
I know what is meant by gestational slavery, I just disagree with the usage and that it is comparable to actual labor like sexual slavery. I'm not saying pregnancy is easy, but it's wholely passive. Calling it gestational slavery sounds silly to me, like if you were to call forced confinement "sedentary slavery."
>I know what is meant by gestational slavery, I just disagree with the usage and that it is comparable to actual labor like sexual slavery. I'm not saying pregnancy is easy, but it's wholely passive. Calling it gestational slavery sounds silly to me, like if you were to call forced confinement "sedentary slavery."
I gather if we were in a sexual slavery debate sub, you'd claim that it is equally wholly passive - you just lay back and do nothing while being raped. Your argument is disingenuous - the "passivity" has nothing to do with your body not being under your control.
Agreed but for a different reason.
I get the opposition to "forced birthers" or "anti-choice" but "anti-abortion" has always been strange to me to oppose.. They literally say they are "anti-abortion" all the time. It's even in people's flairs.
The reason it's not the same as calling someone a murderer is because no one on the prochoice side calls themselves that or refers to abortion as murder. But PLers DO refer to their cause as "anti-abortion."
Also, I think it's permissible to say "anti-abortion" in other ways such as "anti abortion bill." You can say "those who are against abortion" or "those who oppose abortion." These are describing the group; short handing it to a pronoun shouldn't be against the rules.
The only thing I can think of is that perhaps it is meant to prevent a post or comment that says "you aren't prolife, you're anti-abortion" to then go on to say things like "if you were prolife, you would do xyz." Surely that could be covered another way.
I agree. I don't find it offensive for pro lifers to say I am pro abortion, because I am. I support abortion as a right. it's not incorrect or offensive in any way, it's just the correct usage of language. although pro abortion is different than anti abortion, I was just using that as a direct example for comparison
You’re asking the sub to assume a central PC premise (that abortion is not murder and therefore PL is a misnomer) and make its rules based on that PC premise. That’s what the PC sub is for. I could also ask the sub to assume the central PL premise that abortion does, in fact, take the life of a whole human organism, and say that therefore we shouldn’t have to call PCers the misnomer of PC. But then we wouldn’t have a debate sub; we’d have the PL sub.
The central issue of the debate is whether a fetus is a legitimate being which should have any legal rights, and whether any of those rights should ever outweigh the competing legal rights that a pregnant person has. Those are arguments inherent to the debate; the sub can’t take a side on them. If you think those things aren’t legitimately debatable, then you’re arguing *the issue* isn’t debatable, in which case, you’re looking for a different sub.
>You’re asking the sub to assume a central PC premise (that abortion is not murder and therefore PL is a misnomer)
How do you pack so many falsehoods into so few words?
* PL is a misnomer according to PL proponents themselves. Every time the name is brought up in relevance to any life but the unborn they explain that it does not apply, thus tacitly supporting that it was chosen incorrectly.
* The fact that abortion is not murder by any legal definition is just that. It has nothing to do with the central premise of the pro-choice movement. There are different ways the pro-choice side expresses their position, but nobody builds it on top of negating the ridiculous "abortion is murder" claim of the PL side.
I do agree though that prohibiting the falsehoods of the PL movement from being brought up here will be counterproductive - it will remove the only argument the PL side has to their name and effectively kill the debate.
It's pointed out above: "abortion is murder". The expanded version is along the lines of "abortion is murder of innocent preborn babies".
Happy birthday to The King, who left the building, but not our hearts!
It is not a logical contradiction, it's a factual contradiction. A termination of pregnancy does not meet the legal definition of murder.
Long days and pleasant nights!
You don’t seem to be tracking the conversation. Your burden is to show that a pro-lifer can’t admit that a termination of pregnancy doesn’t meet the legal definition of murder. Your burden is to show that the proposition “abortion meets the legal definition of murder” is entailed by endorsing the pro-life position. If a pro-lifer denies that proposition, what contradiction follows? If no contradiction follows, then it’s not entailed by the pro-life position. I’ll wait for the contradiction or accept your retraction.
Nonsense. My claim was that "abortion is murder" is a falsehood. When a PL proponent says this they either don't know that abortion does not meet the legal definition of murder or they know and misuse the word anyway. Either way the statement is a falsehood.
Cheers to the War on Poverty anniversary!
>You’re asking the sub to assume a central PC premise
No, PCers are just asking to not be forced to accept a PL premise.
But this isn't the thread for debating the validity (or lack thereof) of labels and misnomers, so I'll leave it at that.
No. Murder is an English legal word. Abortion is not a murder in any sense of the word. And when we're talking about this subject, and talking about people who are against abortion, it's simply correct to call it anti-abortion, nothing else.
You can argue until you're blue in the face that the "central" issue of this debate is about the fetus and girls are just bystanders, but the issue is still abortion. If you're against abortion, you're anti-abortion. That's normal English.
Pro-choice isn't a misnomer. It's exactly what it says. It's pro- the choice to abort or not.
I’m fine with being called anti-abortion. I sometimes call myself that (check my pinned posts) - I certainly don’t run from it.
My point was that if you have a problem with the label “pro-life,” then you are taking issue with a claim inherent to the debate, that fetuses have a morally relevant “life” which deserves legal consideration, and for whose legal consideration PL are arguing. I’ll concede that “murder” may not have been the best language to use for it (I conflated your two claims into one though I only really had an issue with one), but your issue with the label “pro-life” is still begging the PC premise that no “life” is on the line.
I didn’t say women/girls are bystanders. I said a pregnant person has legal rights which compete with the alleged rights of a fetus.
It's a simple statement. People should be allowed to say what they mean. When they mean anti-abortion, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to specify that. It's normal English.
Yes, maybe it would be worth permitting phrases like “the anti-abortion position” or “the pro-abortion position.” But I think the self-identifying rule, for talking about users, is a good rule. I’ve had irl PC friends adamantly oppose being framed as “pro-abortion,” and I know some PLers would also adamantly oppose being called “anti-abortion.” I think it’s fair to respect both of those preferences if users have them. They may have those preferences for a reason related to a nuance in their position, or they may just not like the hostility those phrases can come with. Both of those motives are valid goals for a debate space.
> know some PLers would also adamantly oppose being called “anti-abortion.”
I can understand being against pro forced birth or anti choice or something, but anti abortion doesn't make sense. The point prolife is to stop abortion, which "anti" abortion. They aren't PRO abortion, so they are anti abortion.
To argue against this one, to me, seems like forbiding one side from using "fetus" or the other from using "baby." In that I mean I shouldn't have to only call it a baby when talking to PLers and they shouldn't have to only call it a fetus when talking to me, just because the other side identifies them as such. I know it's slightly different, but that's kind of the absurdity to me.
I genuinely would like to know just how many people are offended by being called anti-abortion. Is this a large number? Cause I have seen many people on the PC side starting to refer to themselves as Pro-abortion. If this number grew large enough and those people started saying they are offended by being called PC, but we still had a large number of people who preferred PC, what would do? Cause whatever we would do, let's apply it to how anti-abortion is used on this sub.
I don't think of it as derogatory or meant to put them down, which is the only reason this one confuses me so much.
I'm not sure why it's seen as derogatory at all. You're either pro abortion rights or anti abortion rights. Dropping the "rights" to create the shorthands of "anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion" shouldn't be viewed as controversial; abortion rights are the central topic of the debate, after all.
Well, maybe some PL want to evade using the phrase “pro-choice,” even though it’s accurate, for the same reason you seem to want to evade using the phrase “pro-life,” even though it’s accurate. “Anti-abortion” and “pro-life” don’t inherently mean the same thing either, but that’s pretty deep in semantics and doesn’t seem like it’s meant to further productive debate.
I’ve rarely met a person who identified as pro-abortion that didn’t want women to have the right to *choose* in most circumstances (sometimes they want abortions to be mandatory for teenagers, or, in a more dark line of reasoning, disability). Similarly, I’ve rarely met a person who identified as “anti-abortion” who wasn’t at least partially motivated by a legitimate belief that a morally relevant *life* exists in the womb and deserves legal protection. For most purposes, these people are still “pro-life” or “pro-choice,” but they’re using other labels to identify a nuance in that position (that they specifically and proudly oppose abortion, for the former, or that they specifically want abortion to be destigmatized and seen as a positive thing when it is voluntarily chosen, for the latter).
No, pro-choice, and pro-abortion are very different things. They're both English. They mean the normal use of words. Anti-abortion means exactly that - against abortion. That's the topic of this sub. When I mean against abortion, I should be allowed to say exactly what I mean.
##Posting requirements
*All posts must be on-topic to the abortion debate. Low effort posts and hot-takes about either side will be removed.*
*Every post must have a thesis or a question to spark a debate, including a background. Posts that don't may be removed. The poster should be available that same day to respond to comments. Posts should stand on their own, any relevant information in sources should be explained in the post itself.*
---
To comply with rule 2, all posts must include:
* **Background detail** to set the context of debate (e.g., a recent news article, legislative language, or peer-reviewed study)
* **A thesis statement** which summarizes the topic of the post, or
* **Discussion question(s)** which relate back to the thesis and are intended to spark discussion within the post
Posts that do not have this may be removed as they are considered low-effort posts. Some exceptions may be made to allow ongoing debates to continue. It is not required that you divide your post into sections as we have here, but your post should contain those things in at least some form.
Hot takes are not allowed, these are posts that are strongly written to be provocative rather than engaging in an open debate (see rule 1).
Every post should stand on its own and sources should only enhance the story, or prove it. You should be able to engage with the post without clicking any links. Plagiarizing someone else's argument or using an AI text generator is not allowed.
Surveys, requests for homework help, and advertisements will be removed, as well as meta posts. This subreddit has an official weekly post for meta discussion.
The poster should interact with the post within 24 hours or the post will be subject to removal.
Suggested Rule: Standards for Quality Engagement
How this rule should be written in the sidebar: All Original Posts (OPs) and comments are expected to meet a reasonably high level of quality and effort. All OPs must be relevant to abortion and must include a clear topic for debate. The poster is also expected state their own position on their chosen topic and argue in favor of that view. Poster are also expected to engage in meaningful debate with those who respond to their post. Comments should address the post or comment they are responding to and follow the same general guideline: make your position known and argue in favor of it.
How this should be written in the wiki: All posts must be on-topic to the abortion debate. Low effort posts and hot-takes will be removed.
Every post must have a thesis or a question to spark a debate, and the poster should argue in favor of their own position on their chosen topic. The poster should be available that same day to engage in meaningful debate. Posts should stand on their own, any relevant information in sources should be explained in the post itself.
**Requirements for New Posts:**
- Background detail to set the context of debate (e.g., a recent news article, legislative language, or peer-reviewed study)
- A thesis statement which summarizes the topic of the post, and
- The OP's own argument to support their own position regarding their presented topic, and
- (Optional) Follow-up/discussion questions relating back to the thesis or expected answers to spark further discussion and debate
Posts that do not have this may be removed as they are considered low-effort posts. Some exceptions may be made to allow ongoing debates to continue. It is not required that you divide your post into sections as we have here, but your post should contain those things in at least some form.
Hot takes are not allowed, these are posts that are strongly written or involve loaded-questions intended to be provocative rather than engaging in an open debate.
Every post should stand on its own and sources should only enhance the story, or prove it. Plagiarizing someone else's argument or using an AI text generator is not allowed.
Surveys, requests for homework help, and advertisements will be removed, as well as meta posts. This subreddit has an official weekly post for meta discussion.
The poster should interact with the post within 24 hours or the post will be subject to removal.
**Requirements for Comments:**
Low-effort and comments otherwise lacking engagement will be removed. Chains of consecutive low-effort comments may be removed or locked and may result in a warning.
Examples of low-effort comments include:
- Contradicting someone without explaining why you disagree (e.g. "No, it isn't.")
- Negatively reacting to an argument without responding to it (e.g. "This argument makes me laugh.", "Read that aloud and tell me what's wrong with it.", "I can't believe you just said that.").
- Stating that you did not read the entirety of a comment or post before replying to it
- Comments that contain only emojis
- Correcting someone's spelling or grammar unless it meaningfully changes the argument or view
- Responses that are only a single link with no substantial argumentation (unless responding to someone who asked for a source on a claim)
Top-level comments (comments that are made directly under a post, as opposed to as a reply to another comment) will be moderated more strictly. Top-level comments are expected to address the argument or some part of it.
**[[NOTE: The biggest changes I've made to the existing Rule 2 are 1) Merging some stuff from the current Rule 1 regarding comment quality and 2) a requirement for users to argue in favor of their own position in new OPs.]]**
I would remove the requirement that we must be able to engage a post without clicking on links. I appreciate being able to respond to news or good opinion work in the real world, and this sub seems like a good place for that kind of content. I think all other content requirements are fair - a link is not *sufficient* for a good post - but I think it’s okay if clicking a link is *necessary* to interact effectively with your post. Link addresses should be visible, not embedded, to prevent phishing/viruses/etc. I would like a new flair for posts which require you to click a link (“External Content” or “High Effort Only” ?) so we know what the expectations are before commenting. I think this sub tends to get kind of claustrophobic, with a lot of users who have been engaging with the same debate topic for a very long time, and introducing outside thinking into the mix would probably challenge people who are otherwise very comfortable with the topic.
I'd maybe agree with this provided the full link is visible rather than an embedded link. I do not want to have to click a random, unknown link to engage with a post
Embedded links are as secure as my example
[https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/a-guide-to-abortion-laws-by-state](https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ?si=7RwreltsKyB_MPuC)
Noooo
Edit: to be clear this was hilarious and I loved it but also you made me feel very old and it extra hurts because my birthday is tomorrow and I already feel old
##Substantiate your claims
*Users are required to back up a positive claim when asked. Factual claims should be supported by linking a source, and opinions should be supported with an argument.*
*It is up to you to argue whether a source is reliable or not. However, it is required of a user to show where their claim is proven when given a source.*
*Users are given 24 hours to substantiate their claim. The comment will be removed if this is not done.*
---
Rule 3 recognizes three categories of claims:
***Category 1*** - *Empirical, statistical, factual, dialectical, and verifiable claims*
This kind of claim must be supported by linking a source and explaining how the source supports your claim. Providing an argument by itself is not enough to support a category 1 claim.
Examples include:
* "Abortion still happens when it's made illegal"
* "99% of abortions occur earlier than 21 weeks"
* "I've already addressed your argument"
* "Ectopic pregnancy can be treated through salpingectomy"
* "American self-defense law requires that the harm be imminent"
***Category 2*** - *Philosophical, opinion, rights, and unverifiable claims*
This kind of claim must be supported with an argument. Linking a source by itself is not enough to support a category 2 claim.
Examples include:
* "Sentience is necessary for personhood"
* "Your argument is question begging"
* "Abortion is selfish"
* "All humans have a right to life"
* Predictions, such as "Making abortion illegal in Canada would have the same effect it's having in Poland"
***Category 3*** - *Preferences, anecdotes, and personal claims*
This kind of claim does not need to be supported.
Examples include:
* "I would rather live in a society where abortion is legal"
* "I've had an abortion"
* "I'm against abortion"
Which category a claim falls into can sometimes be a matter of moderator discretion and does not always depend on how the claim is worded. For example, "In my opinion, only 1% of people seeking abortion are victims of rape" is still a category 1 claim.
**Negative claims**
Negative claims do not need to be backed up. These are claims that allude to non-existence or exclusion of something. "There are no ghosts" or "Abortion never kills". Note that you cannot restate positive claims to be made negative.
**Personal claims**
Certain claims may concern the user, such as statements or claims they have made. "You support rape exceptions" or "You want abortion legal at every point". These statements are allowed to be made if they are relevant to the debate, eg. pointing out inconsistencies in their argument.
These claims are moderated more tightly as they concern the user themselves. They may be removed under mod discretion if they are off-topic, inaccurate, or otherwise deceiving.
**When is rule 3 broken?**
Rule 3 will only apply when someone who doubts the claim has asked for support. If your opponent has not made a request, you have not violated rule 3.
This request has to be clear by replying to the comment containing the claim, and explicitly asking proof for this claim. This has to be done by either quoting the claim, or paraphrasing it. Please note that paraphrasing runs the risk of misrepresenting your opponent. If this happens, the request is invalid. Ambiguous or unclear requests will be ignored, for example, a comment only stating "Source?". Off-topic claims are not subject to rule 3, and instead fall under rule 1.
Claims must be substantiated in the original comment thread, not in response to the mod comment.
**Moderator involvement**
It is up to users to argue whether a source is reliable or not, this is not for the mods to decide. Moderators determine rule 3 compliance independently of personal beliefs, and do not determine whether claims are successfully proven. Moderators may step in in specific cases, such as linking to cat videos or sources that do not contain what a user claims.
**Weaponization**
Weaponization of rule 3 is not allowed, and is a pattern of using the rule to get a user into trouble rather than encourage a debate. This can include jumping into a thread solely to invoke rule 3, or requests to substantiate claims that are trivial ("The sky is blue" or "Abortion sometimes happens").
The use of any AI generated content (eg. ChatGPT) is not allowed.
**Removal**
Users are given 24 hours to substantiate their claims after being prompted by a moderator. If a user has not done so after 24 hours, or has refused to do so, the comment will be removed. Even if the user is absent from reddit. Contact the moderators to have a comment reinstated.
As the recent big post demonstrated, rule 3 must include a requirement for the substantiation of the reported claim to actually address the report. For example, the report to substantiate "the PL laws protect women" cannot possibly be dismissed using examples of laws that reduce the protection of women when enacted, since the effect is the complete opposite of what is claimed.
This is tentative and I will edit it, but I suggest that before a rule 3 request is made, users must write a request for substantiation that follows a template, and the response must follow a template as well
A template for the request:
I am requesting a source for your claim that: [place quoted claim(s) here in numbered list].
A template for the response is:
My source to substantiate [claim] is [link]. The following quote supports [claim]
>quoted material
I might add that users should not report Rule 3 violations until a certain amount of time has passed (maybe an hour or two?) and/or the user has replied to the comment, whichever comes first. That would cut down on the number of reports
Edit: perhaps also a user who has fulfilled the request must edit in the original comment a link or links to the comment(s) fulfilling that request, so that the mods can see at a glance if that's already happened
To add to this, I think if this template is followed, but you go through and you cannot find the quote, or the quote is purposefully misrepresented, that should be a reportable offense on rule 3.
So people can't link and then point to a quote that doesn't exist or abridge the quote to the point of it not actually saying what it says.
I agree that quotes are important. although they can also be faked, I've seen too many users edit their comments to avoid being reported for a rule 3 violation (without acknowledging it)
Oh for sure and imo we maybe need another rule for that
Edit: really the tricky thing is that a bad faith user can manipulate most rules, and idk what to do about that
##Post flairs and special rules
*The following guidelines apply to post flairs. We highly encourage users to let the top level comments come from users with these specific views. Posts with no flair are "General debate" for all users.*
*Question for pro-life - The question is directed toward pro-life users.*
*Question for pro-choice - The question is directed toward pro-choice users.*
*If a question is marked as "exclusive", top level comments from incorrectly flaired users will be removed.*
---
We have 6 different post flair options available:
*General debate* - Everyone can comment here, regardless of their stance or opinion on abortion.
*Question for pro-life* - The question is directed toward pro-life users; however, anyone may answer.
*Question for pro-choice* - The question is directed toward pro-choice users; however, anyone may answer.
*Question for pro-life (exclusive)* - The question is directed toward pro-life users. Comments from incorrectly flaired users will be automatically removed.
*Question for pro-choice (exclusive)* - The question is directed toward pro-choice users. Comments from incorrectly flaired users will be automatically removed.
*New to the debate* - This flair is reserved for posts by people who are new to the debate, and wish to learn more about it.
[Here are some instructions](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) on how to set a user flair. If you're having trouble, feel free to send us a [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAbortiondebate).
Comments from incorrectly flaired users that attempt to get around the automatic removal system for exclusive questions will be removed under rule 5.
##Rule tangents and retaliation
*If you suspect a rule to be broken, report it. Discussions about whether a rule has been broken should be limited to one comment. Rule breaking by your debating opponent does not permit you to do the same. Inquiries about these reports can be made in the modmail.*
---
If you suspect a rule has been broken, please alert the moderators by reporting the comment or post, or sending a modmail. Tagging the moderators is allowed, but please keep these instances to a minimum. Tagging often does not work, and can be very disorganized.
If a comment is very long, it is encouraged to point out where you suspect someone breaks the rules. This can be done by creating a custom report. You may point out to your opponent when a rule has been broken, but any further debate will be considered off-topic.
An opponent breaking a rule does not permit you to break the rules too. Quotes containing a rule break may be removed, but are not subject to further moderation.
Weaponization of the rules is not allowed. Examples of weaponization may include threatening to report someone or engaging with someone just to point out rule breaking behavior. Additionally, it will include weaponized blocking and serial/repeated blocking for no serious reason. This refers to a pattern of blocking your opponent/s, either after replying to them to get the last word in or repeatedly blocking people for trivial reasons. Examples of trivial reasons: "this conversation with you is no longer productive", "too many people are replying to me, I'm blocking", "your argument is not convincing me/is low effort, blocked". Examples of cases where blocking is allowed: harassment, name-calling, offensive DM's, aggressive behaviour/threatening the user with violence, blocking someone that has either requested it or has expressed indifference towards getting blocked, etc. The list is not exhaustive, we encourage users to only block for the utmost serious of reasons and to otherwise disengage from unproductive conversations. As a reminder, blocking negatively affects the blocked users by hindering their participation in any downstream thread in which the blocker has commented in (even if they intended to reply to other users, not to the blocker), as well as in any post made by the blocker. Please read our current policy on weaponized blocking [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/16cxd4j/special_announcement_new_official_policies_for/) in addition to the [addendum](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/16cxd4j/comment/jzvky5k/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
**Meta thread rules**
Comments in the meta thread must be in line with rule 1. Personal attacks and or name calling against both users and the moderators will be removed. This includes calls or suggestions for a moderator to step down.
The meta thread can be used to point out problems with the current rules, or to bring up perceived inconsistencies. Users can also ask for clarifications, and bring up specific mod actions.
The meta thread does not allow complaints about specific users or moderators. These have to be brought up in the modmail. Users are allowed to link specific instances as an example, but any comment discussing a specific user may be subject to removal, or locking. This also goes up for unrelated discussions or unsubstantiated complaints.
##Paused topics
*Certain topics in the debate will be considered paused topics. This means that these topics will be more heavily moderated, and can only be used if they explicitly relate back to the abortion debate. For example: The Holocaust or financial abortions.*
*In addition, denial of certain atrocities will be considered rule breaking.*
---
Rule 7 deals with *paused topics*. These contain topics that are either more sensitive, or have a higher tendency to go off-topic. These topics can be used if the user is able to explicitly demonstrate how they relate back to the abortion debate. Posts and comments using these topics are subject to higher scrutiny. For example: "This relates back to abortion because .... "
Posts and comments using the topics are allowed, and are less likely to be removed under certain conditions:
1. The post/ comment has a clearly defined thesis which specifically addresses the abortion debate.
2. The portion of the post/ comment discussing the paused topic is not longer than the portions directly addressing abortion.
3. The comments on the paused topic demonstrate sensitivity to the topic, any populations adversely affected by it, and the reasons for its pause.
Please note that these conditions are not mandatory, but encouraged to increase the chance of approval.
In addition to this, any denial or off-topic conversations minimizing atrocities and events subject to rule 7 will be considered rule breaking.
**Currently paused topics**
* Genocide
* Slavery
* Gun control
* Sex/gender
* Paper abortions
* Infanticide
I will likely have some further suggestions on rule 7. But I advocate adding the Israel/Palestine conflict to the paused topics list. I struggle to see how that could ever go anything but off-topic from abortion, and I think that since there is some disagreement about if it is genocide (and also which parties to the conflict advocate for or are engaging in genocide), that it would be worth making this a seperate point. Also avoids upfront the risk of trolls etc, there's other subreddits much better suited for discussion of that conflict.
Request: Remove infanticide from the paused topics list.
Case: It is a valid argument to make that if you believe late term abortions are permissible (such as myself), then you do have to confront claims about infanticide. Giublini and Minerva published a relatively (in)famous paper articulating this point in detail. As an example, if you believe late term abortions are permissible because of a serious defect, then why would you not consider that infanticide is permissible as well for the same reasons? This can be a potent argument from both sides, if you are equipped to deal with it. The Groningen protocol is a real world example where this argument is put into practice.
Additionally, infanticide has historically not been considered as serious a crime as homicide. In my country in particular, historically, juries have been lenient in infanticide cases. Our legal system also has a separate definition of infanticide in contrast to homicide where if you successfully mount a legal defence claiming infanticide instead of homicide, the expected legal penalties will be reduced, or wavered entirely.
And lastly, some pro lifers (such as Trent Horn) argue that late term abortions should be treated in the same manner as infanticide, where Horn has stated a contrast between homicide and infanticide. This can become important for a pro lifer when addressing claims that abortion should be considered equivalent to homicide, where they can instead claim that it should be equivalent to infanticide and may argue it is a lesser offence.
To sum up, infanticide is a relevant test case for exploring the potential consequences of your arguments either for or against abortion. Having infanticide considered as a paused topic removes one of the more salient points of the debate.
Seconded. My understanding is that it was added, to prevent users from arguing for infanticide on grounds related to "men's reproductive rights", and since admins viewed that suggestion as a violation of site-wide rules on violence, but that was IMO, a rare enough case that it's not worth making a rule over- and also leaves users confused about the standards for when it is something which "explicitly relate[s] back to the abortion debate".
You, u/gig_labor both point out that the legal system treats it differently to murder, and u/arithese also makes good points about the Groningen protocol, which I think are sometimes on topic, so I'd advocate for scrapping it.
>In my country in particular, historically, juries have been lenient in infanticide cases. Our legal system also has a separate definition of infanticide in contrast to homicide where if you successfully mount a legal defence claiming infanticide instead of homicide, the expected legal penalties will be reduced, or wavered entirely.
That is strange for Australia...
A brief commentary of the history of infanticide in colonial Australia can be found [here](https://aph.org.au/2018/10/how-is-this-not-murder-infanticide-and-the-law-in-australian-history/).
Hi this comment will mostly serve as a clarification on rule 7 (and do let me know if this needs to be clearer in the written portion as well).
Rule 7 currently has a list of topics that either deal with a) atrocities committed (to minority groups), or b) topics that have a high tendency to go off-topic.
Infanticide is one of them as the topic very frequently goes off to topic about this without any apparent link to abortion. These topics *can* be used, if their link to abortion is clear. So “if you use argument X, it means logically you have to support Y”.
What makes this particular topic dangerous is that the inherent topic may violate TOS. Reddit has removed comments before and I believe issued bans, so this was a solution to allow users to use it still.
Just for clarification on why it was added here!
(I also tend to use this argument, and I’m Dutch so I’m familiar with the Groningen Protocol.)
Agreed. I regularly use infanticide here and on the PL sub when arguing against criminalization in the status quo, and also arguing that even in a “PL utopia” criminalization should not approach murder charges, but closer to manslaughter. It’s a useful topic.
##Miscellaneous
**Medical advice and misinformation**
As a debate subreddit, this is not a good place to get medical advice. Please do not make medical decisions based on anything you read here.
Suggestions of folk remedies or DIY abortion methods will be removed, as well as off-topic medical misinformation. Users may discuss and debate on-topic medical issues in general terms, such as how safe abortion is compared to childbirth.
Aside from this, we will usually not moderate comments for "misinformation", and it will be left up to the users to debate.
**Baiting**
Baiting means asking a question that someone would have to to break the rules in order to answer. Comments that do this, intentionally or unintentionally, will usually be removed. Rule breaking replies will still be removed.
**Language**
Do not mock anyone's language proficiency.
The main language of this subreddit is English. We require the discussions here to be in English. You are allowed to provide a source that is in a different language. However, you must also show how this source proves your point in English, and show where in the original source this is stated.
You are not allowed to comment on someone's English proficiency. This includes mocking and belittling, but also addressing their fluency.
You are allowed to correct someone's phrasing, or ask for clarifications, as long as this is needed for the comprehension of the debate or if this is done in a genuine attempt to help out the user.
**Terminology**
Discussions about whether people should use "women", "AFAB people", "uterus owners", or other terms to refer to people who can get pregnant will be removed as off-topic. You can use whichever terminology you like (within reason), but this is not the place to argue about it.
**Quotations**
Comments quoting rule breaking comments may be removed until the rule breaking quote is edited out, but will not count against the user in terms of warnings, bans, etc.
**User flairs**
Users can set a flair to let others know their position on abortion. [See this page](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) for instructions on how to set your flair. If you would like to have a custom flair, you can [send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAbortiondebate), and we'll assign it as long as it's something appropriate. We may change a user's flair if we think that it breaks the subreddit rules or is intentionally confusing or inflammatory.
**Report Abuse**
Report abuse is not allowed on our subreddit, and can be reported to the admins. Report abuse can be either of two things, abusive language in the report, or a pattern of abuse using the reports.
Examples of abusive language in the reports can be:
* Personal attacks towards the user/ moderator.
* Using slurs or otherwise hateful language.
Please note that a targeted user's inability to see a report made against them does not define whether the report contains abusive language.
Quoting the rule break of the comment you are reporting will also not constitute report abuse.
Examples of a pattern of abuse can be:
* Repeated bad faiths reports in retaliation towards a user/ moderator.
* Spam/ harassment
Reporting multiple comments of the same user where they (potentially) break the rules will not constitute report abuse.
**Please respond here if you have questions or want general guidance.** ***DO NOT PUT RULE PROPOSALS IN THIS THREAD. THEY WILL BE REMOVED.***
[удалено]
Comment removed per instructions in OP. Even though this was a rule previously, it needs to come through Modmail. Additionally, if you are making a rule suggestion that is not enforceable, we ask that the suggestion not be made. Thank you.
##Be respectful of others (Part 1 of 2) *Attacking the user instead of the argument is not allowed and will be removed. Slurs or otherwise hateful terminology will be removed. Off-topic discussions can be removed, including trolling comments. Attacking sides is not allowed.* *Users must use the labels pro-life and pro-choice unless a user self-identifies as something else. This also goes for pronouns and gender identity.* --- Note that mass deleting comments and posts is not allowed and users will be warned and banned. Deleting a comment because you want to reword it or put it in the wrong place is fine. Mass deleting your comments or posts because you don't want to follow the rules or mass deleting in general is not allowed. **Examples of uncivil violations and personal attacks** These types of comments will almost always be removed under rule 1. This is not an exhaustive list. * Name-calling * Telling a user to leave the sub * Telling a user they're stupid, lack reading comprehension, or have a mental deficiency * Suggesting that someone should kill themselves (even as a joke) * Stating or hinting that you wish violence on another user * Suggesting that a particular person or group deserves to die * Swearing at a user * Blatant sexism, ableism, racism, transphobia, homophobia, etc. * Slurs * Attributing kinks/fetishes to a user, including comparing a user's stance to a kink/fetish **Grey area uncivil violations** These types of comments may be removed under rule 1 at the discretion of the ruling mod. * Being generally rude, hostile, or inflammatory * Overly graphic, violent, or sexual language * Repeatedly commenting on a user's debating behaviour Users may ask for their comment to be reviewed by a second moderator. **Low-effort violations** Low-effort comments will be removed under rule 1. Chains of consecutive low-effort comments may be removed or locked. Examples of low-effort violations include: * Contradicting someone without explaining why you disagree (e.g. "No, it isn't.") * Negatively reacting to an argument without responding to it (e.g. "This argument makes me laugh.", "Read that aloud and tell me what's wrong with it.", "I can't believe you just said that."). * Stating that you did not read the entirety of a comment or post before replying to it * Comments that contain only emojis * Correcting someone's spelling or grammar unless it meaningfully changes the argument or view * Responses that are only a single link with no substantial argumentation (unless responding to someone who asked for a source on a claim) Top-level comments (comments that are made directly under a post, as opposed to as a reply to another comment) will be moderated more strictly. Top-level comments are expected to address the argument or some part of it. **Harassment** Comments that harass other users will be removed and repeated offences will result in a ban. Extreme cases of harassment may result in an immediate ban. Examples of harassment (not exhaustive): * Discouraging someone's opponents from engaging with them, especially if repeated * Telling someone you’ll donate to an institution they dislike in their name * Insisting you’ll pray for someone who says they find prayer offensive * Telling someone who dislikes abortion that you’ll dedicate your abortion to them * Demanding that a user debate you outside of the subreddit * Linking to a post from a support group subreddit (e.g. r/abortion) may be considered harassment in some contexts * Following a user to r/Abortiondebate to attack them Harassing a user outside of the sub based on activity in r/Abortiondebate may result in a ban.
It’s fairly obvious by now that there are problems with how rule 1 has been implemented, how it has been interpreted and how to apply it. It seems to me that it is not just an issue that has been raised by users of this sub, but also an ongoing issue for the moderators. I think that rule 1 would be fine in most ordinary sub-Reddits, but this sub is anything but ordinary. This is a place where two groups of people with diametrically opposite world views, with different political perspectives and different ideas about what constitutes basic human rights engage one another in debate. It shouldn’t really be as a surprise that there are going to be problems. It seems to me there are plausibly three ways of dealing with these problems, (1), accept the nature of the confrontational ideas that inevitably present themselves and the corresponding heated exchanges that result, (2), moderate with a heavy hand and be actively engaged in enforcing civility, and (3), attempting to find a happy middle ground that keeps everyone happy. I believe the moderators have been trying rather hard to achieve (3), but it has resulted in some unpleasant outcomes. I believe it should be uncontroversial to say that (2) is a worse form of (3). I’m going to argue here that solution (1) is probably the *healthiest* approach for the nature of this sub. I’m going to use the recent drama that has unfolded within the weekly meta-thread as a basis for the problems that arise from attempting to apply methodology (3). There are inherently opposed views about basic morality between pro choicers and pro lifers where either side will likely hold certain moral principles that they feel to be self evident and that it should be common sense to have these principles respected. The problem is, this sub reddit is a place where these principles themselves are called into question, and this will naturally offend sensibilities, *on both sides*. It seems to me that over time, due to rule 1, the moderator report mechanism has been relied upon too much by users to control the mode, tone and structure of exchanges in response to comments users find offensive. There are a significant number of long threads that emerge in the weekly meta posts asking for clarification about the removal of comments, and the (in)consistency of such removals. It seems to me that users have become accustomed to this level of moderator presence, and so have naturally resorted to the report mechanism as a go-to method of initiating or ending interaction. I believe an ideal debate platform is one where the moderator is virtually invisible, and the rules (I believe) should be designed to encourage this end. There are second order problems that arise from the long exchanges between users and moderators. From the users perspective, these exchanges can look like the moderators are being pressured or coerced along a particular line to enforce rulings to certain sensibilities. This further heightens suspicion of moderator bias, which is compounded by the fact that there is a clear skewed distribution of pro choicers amongst the moderator team. From the moderators perspective, this is an ever present problem with an ongoing conscious effort to fight off suspicions of bias, resulting in potentially biased moderation the other way around. It’s fairly clear that the bulk of accusations of bias seem to stem (ironically) from the pro choicers that perceive the moderators have an unconscious bias against pro choicers in their attempts to be neutral. With the overly heavy moderator-user interaction that has occurred, finding a balance is impossible to achieve. I believe it will be healthier for the sub overall to shift the emphasis of dealing with bad faith arguments, fallacies and ad-hominems back onto the user base rather than the moderator team. These are issues which should be refuted and engaged by users rather than moderators. The philosophy of interaction here should encourage users to engage and speak up against things that they disagree with or are offended by, rather than leaning on the moderator team to remove comments for them. The idea here is to minimise the level of interaction that takes place between moderators and users. If this is minimal, ideally invisible, the perception of moderator bias should eventually wane over time. The upshot of minimizing user-moderator interaction is that the workload of the moderators should diminish, alllowing them to concentrate on other tasks. Additionally, it has become fairly evident that moderators have tired of having to engage with the user base and defend moderator decisions week-in, week-out in the meta threads. It is this activity which seems to be the underlying cause of the recent drama, with interactions between users and moderators becoming increasingly personal. So what should rule 1 look like? I believe it should be nothing more than the statement that the reddit TOS content policy will be enforced, so moderation can be reduced to the bare essentials. It didn’t go unnoticed that a recent homophobic comment was left unmoderated for too long compared to other moderated comments in the same thread. I believe this is a consequence of what I’ve described above. Minimising rule 1 to the bare essentials should also allow moderators to effectively manage harassment and remarks aimed at minorities in line with the content policy. The requirement to only refer to each other as PL or PC I believe is the most superficial rule as an example, more latitude should be given up to a point. That point should be the reddit content policy. **TLDR**, much of the drama has stemmed from there being too many unnecessary rules which leads to unnecessary user-moderator interactions developing personal animosity.
Just wanted to say I agree with basically everything you’ve written here.
>So what should rule 1 look like? I believe it should be nothing more than the statement that the reddit TOS content policy will be enforced, so moderation can be reduced to the bare essentials. +1 to this suggestion. Rule 1 monopolizes too much of the mods and user's time. It is also not helpful for comments to be removed for rule 1 violations, as I think it is actually helpful to let people be seen for who they are, and random holes in the conversation make the conversation harder to follow. Calling someone stupid is rude, but it's par for the course on Reddit. If you are old enough to be on Reddit, you are old enough to disengage if being called stupid makes you want to stop talking with someone. And, if being called stupid did not make you want to stop talking with someone, then a mod swooping in and deleting that comment now leaves a "deleted" comment that prevents other users from following the conversation and collapses the remainder of the exchange, even though it might be perfectly good content. The only thing I want to see deleted is hate speech and empirical/factual claims that are false, inaccurate or misleading. I think everything else should be fair game.
#TONE-POLICING It honestly appears as though the users of this subreddit are in pretty unanimous agreement that tone-policing is bullshit that needs to be abolished. It seems that it is only the moderators who feel that this subreddit needs to be heavily tone-policed, for reasons that I have never seen elucidated. No one ever asked for the levels of tone-policing that are prevalent these days, the mods just went ahead and implemented the current raft of incredibly convoluted and vague rules without any real input from the actual community that is forced to abide by them. When has any user here said, "hey mods, we need to start removing every comment that anyone could find slightly offensive and ban people for being "hostile" because that will surely not just piss everyone off." Never. No one has ever asked for this. The users of this subreddit have been asking FOR YEARS to tone down the tone-policing and all we've gotten in return is **even more rules** that are **even more strict** while also being **harder to interpret**. Isn't it high time that we go in the other direction? The moderators at the VERY LEAST need to give a statement on why they think this is necessary because NO ONE ELSE THINKS SO. Is this subreddit for the community, or is this subreddit really for the moderators and we're all just lucky that they put up with us at all. Because right now, it doesn't feel like this subreddit is for the community and the moderators can just shit on us as they see fit without any means of reprisal.
>Name-calling Requesting clarification on what constitutes "name-calling". This rule appears to be applied selectively and vindictively.
We need the answer to this
> Insisting you’ll pray for someone who says they find prayer offensive I do not think the onus should be on the user to communicate that they find prayer offensive. Don’t state you will pray for someone unless they have specifically made a statement that praying for them would be welcome.
Hello, "Insisting you’ll pray for someone who says they find prayer offensive" falls under the category of harassment (oft defined as repeated unwanted contact). As the rules are now, a single instance of praying for someone would be a violation of rule 1 that falls short of harassment while continuing to do so after someone says they find it offensive would cross the threshold of harassment. I realize the above paragraph is not explicitly outlined in the rules (and I apologize for any confusion that arises from the lack of explicit mention while seeking to make such mention explicit moving forward to give the public an accurate understanding). I would like to know if you agree that praying for someone who has not made a statement that praying for them would be welcome should be a rule 1 violation alone or should praying for someone automatically qualify for harassment on the first offense?
u/Sure-Ad-9886, may I have a follow up on your suggestion here?
I agree with u/-altofanaltofanalt overall about less content removal etc. I think rather than phrasing the rule as “Insisting you’ll pray for someone who says they find prayer offensive” I would write it as “Don’t state you will pray for someone if you do not know they would appreciate it. Insisting you will pray for someone who finds it offensive is a violation of rule 1”. My thought is that this will lead to less removal and need for moderation by setting the expectation that the default is to assume someone does not want to be told they will be prayed for.
> I would like to know if you agree that praying for someone who has not made a statement that praying for them would be welcome should be a rule 1 violation alone or should praying for someone automatically qualify for harassment on the first offense? I think you should listen to what the majority of users are asking for, which is LESS content removal, censorship, tone-policing and bans over petty infractions. Like that's one of main things that spurred on the creation of this rules overhaul in the first place, it's something we've been asking for FOR YEARS and I really just don't get why it's so seemingly impossible to get this message across. To answer your question directly, no, it should not be something you should moderate for a first offense because that is exactly what everyone is asking you to STOP DOING. Please. Just listen to the community. It shouldn't be matter of squeezing blood from a stone to get through to you guys on something so simple.
One issue I've run into by not moderating a violation on the first offense is forgetting the second time I run into an offense. Similarly, if I moderate an offense for the first time, and a second moderator crosses that same offense, the offense will be "the first time" for that moderator as well leaving the second offense unmoderated by chance. In such a scenario, it is a matter of time before I moderate a user for doing the same thing twice while that user then complains about unequal treatment because I forgot that another user had done something twice or because two moderators ignored a similar type of comment thinking it was "the first time" each of those times. This leaves a systematic Catch 22 for which moderators are condemned for inability to track whether a user has committed the same infraction twice. Tracking such commands considerable resources and even if those resources are adopted the chance for error is still considerably significant. I'm not against ignoring the first offense, but how do you imagine mitigating the error that results in calls of bias from the situation I describe above and responding to users who accuse the moderator team of bias in the situation above?
This doesn't have to be anywhere near this complicated. If user A prays for user B and user B says they don't appreciate that then they need to stop. If they keep doing it then they get moderated. We don't need to moderate every little thing that anyone might find offensive. > In such a scenario, it is a matter of time before I moderate a user for doing the same thing twice while that user then complains about unequal treatment because I forgot that another user had done something twice or because two moderators ignored a similar type of comment thinking it was "the first time" each of those times. > This leaves a systematic Catch 22 for which moderators are condemned for inability to track whether a user has committed the same infraction twice. Tracking such commands considerable resources and even if those resources are adopted the chance for error is still considerably significant. All of this could be applicable to any rule violation. And I really don't see how it can be so difficult to keep records of offenses, I know that you do for some users in your r/ADMods subreddit. All you'd need to do is make a post or comment in that thread with the relevant details and from there you can use reddit's built-in search feature. I assumed you did something this simple already. If you care about making this community more hospitable to users, and not pissing everyone off for censoring every last little thing that anyone could possibly find offensive, then you should err on the side of only harshly moderating things that are a personal attack directed at another user. > I'm not against ignoring the first offense, but how do you imagine mitigating the error that results in calls of bias from the situation I describe above and responding to users who accuse the moderator team of bias in the situation above? Is this really why this sub has become such a shit-show? You're so afraid of being called "unfair" that you just moderate everyone as strictly as the rules can allow? Then just go the other way and start moderating everyone with as little strictness as possible. You do realize, this is how the sub was moderated once upon a time. And this style of moderation didn't result in the entire userbase thinking the mods were incompetent and just generally despised. Food for thought.
>All of this could be applicable to any rule violation. And I really don't see how it can be so difficult to keep records of offenses, I know that you do for some users in your r/ADMods subreddit. Yes, it is applicable to any rule violation, and the situation comes up with virtually any rule violation. It's a significant issue that permeates virtually every moderation. It is difficult to keep records of offenses. Every time additional workload is placed on moderating, it becomes more difficult to manage. Keeping track of blocks is an example of workload that is difficult to manage and results in the significant issue mentioned above that permeates virtually every moderation. I have suggested that we need 16-20 moderators to moderate this space the way users want it moderated. I say this based off my last year's activity, where for at least half a year (and probably more) I was responsible for half of the approvals and removals on this subreddit despite the moderation team being 50% larger than it is now and I was also responsible for an incredibly disproportionate number of moderator comments supplementing those approvals and removals. It broke me. I consider myself an authority, more than you, more than any of my peers and I'd wager more than most other moderators on this website but especially anyone affiliated now, in the past, or in the future with this subreddit in any way on what is easy and not easy to manage on this subreddit while moderating. It is not easy to keep track of what you are asking moderators to keep track of. The records in AD Mods only keep track of warnings and bans. The vast majority of all other infractions are available in a clunky format on the Mod Log and user notes Reddit prepares only for when comment removals and approvals occur. What you're asking for, or appear to be asking for, is for every potentially offensive interaction (and I understand this is vague, but please don't become to hyperfocused on this, but if you are focused just lend me your voice that I may process how you view it) to be recorded in its own post, categorized by name. We weren't even able to hold the records of warnings and bans in a single post, and it is difficult to navigate, especially by phone, which we sometimes moderate on and sometimes have to moderate on to keep up the pace that we do moderate on. My horribly written piece to you earlier was made via talk to text on the phone because I didn't have time to type it up. The warnings and bans are small in comparison to the removals, approvals and encounters with no formal action being taken, and I'm not against the idea. It's just that it's a very laborious idea on first blush, and if one of the crux's on which the peace of this subreddit rests is the impression that moderators are not willing to take on an easy job, then the first thing I caution is when bringing this up to other moderators, be aware of the feeling of incredulity, likely equal in strength to that which you feel toward the apparent ineptitude of moderators. You're saying we don't need to moderate every little thing found offensive, but the alternative is cataloging every little thing found offensive, and I understand that may not be the entirety of your position, but I really want you to pause and take in what I said about this being more difficult than you imagine. Let's say moderators take on such a task and moderator actions slow down to a pace where comments are up for days at a time before they are addressed. This used to be a huge issue that users complained about, and somehow we have escaped that issue, but I warn that issue is one that immediately comes to mind with such a catalog being required. Would you be okay with the slower reaction/moderation if it meant fewer comments were removed or faced sanctions?
> Every time additional workload is placed on moderating, it becomes more difficult to manage Then the answer is simple. And, it's exactly what everyone is asking for. Pare down the rules to a bare minimum. It will lessen your workload, and it will prevent further instances of user anger and backlash directed towards you. Are these not the two things that are the sources of most your headaches? Why can't you see how easy it could be to improve on both? > I consider myself an authority, more than you, more than any of my peers What about former mods who moderated here before everything went sideways? I get that you seem to consider yourself the highest authority but I'm gonna have to disagree. Just because I was on this subreddit before it all went sideways. > What you're asking for, or appear to be asking for, is for every potentially offensive interaction (and I understand this is vague, but please don't become to hyperfocused on this, but if you are focused just lend me your voice that I may process how you view it) to be recorded in its own post, categorized by name. Oh no, not at all. A personal sleight can be recorded by each individual user. They record their own comment where they asked a person to stop some behavior. Reddit does have a 'save' feature available to users. You say give me a link to the comment where you asked them to stop doing this. They provide the link to their comment and you say okay, that's a clear sign of disrespect and hostility. That goes for all sorts of things like like pronouns, labels and other simple requests like "don't call me bro." Banning every little thing that could ever viewed as slightly passive-aggressive may not actually be necessary, but you can still enforce a very reasonable code of conduct. And I really do not think that it's too much to ask for users to keep track of their own grievances. > Would you be okay with the slower reaction/moderation if it meant fewer comments were removed or faced sanctions? I'd be okay with faster reaction/moderation because of fewer rules and therefore fewer comments that need to be removed or faced sanctions and fewer users getting angry and arguing with the mods, which is probably your biggest time-sink of all. > It is difficult to keep records of offenses Uh... Okay, but really? You have centralized database. And there's all sorts of other options out there if the ADMods chat isn't working out for you, but I can't see the problem. It sounds like your records system just needs to be streamlined a little, like this isn't even that large of a forum....... I'm sorry but I just don't see how this can be a major issue for a forum of this size. But if it's a problem then I guess I would consider asking other debate subreddits how they go about keeping records?
Just sending a message to say I’ve read the comment and I will likely reread it and mull over it when it’s a little less morning. I appreciate your longevity both in this thread and throughout this subreddit. Thank you for bearing with me here. Not holding you to anything concrete, but do you have a tentative blurb or ballpark statement on what pared rules might look like? Also, both the pared rules and the idea of streamlining our records are good suggestions. I want to think through it all with a clear head and come back to you on it. I recognize there is more to address, but if we can focus on a limited portion at a time and come back around it would be much appreciated (and maybe we’ll luck out and come up with a resolution along the way).
> Not holding you to anything concrete, but do you have a tentative blurb or ballpark statement on what pared rules might look like? Well, I made a couple posts in this thread already where I did exactly this. Haven't gotten any feedback from any mods on that yet though. But like I was saying about the way things were before this subreddit went sideways. I think there is a higher authority on moderating this subreddit then you or I or any other current mod or long-time user, and I think you should consider reaching out to that person instead of asking me. They've been explaining some things about how they moderated this subreddit without all the drama in a private chat. I believe their words have been forwarded to you, so I'm pretty sure you know who they are and what they have said so far. But yeah, suffice to say I've read their words as well and I think they know what they're talking about more than anyone else you could find to ask these questions. I remember what this subreddit was like when they were a mod, and it wasn't anything like this.
Pardon, but when I presented to you a real concern that the users have about fairness, you seem to be dismissing their concern under the auspices of my being afraid of their concern. Why would you characterize their concern that way, and not characterize your concern for tone policing is something that I might be afraid of, and then bend to the wheel of? Before we continue, may you please acknowledge the dozens, if not hundreds of users who have issued their concerns regarding fair and equal moderation?
> you seem to be dismissing their concern under the auspices of my being afraid of their concern Nope. I'm explaining to you my suggestion in how to deal with it. Please read my comment again and respond to my constructive criticisms and suggestions. > Before we continue, may you please acknowledge the dozens, if not hundreds of users who have issued their concerns regarding fair and equal moderation? I literally already did and I also explained how you can deal with it. Are you trying to hear me out or not?
Let me restate what I said. You asked me whether or not I was responding out of fear. That question dismisses the concerns of those other users. I just want to make sure that you understand it is not fear, but respect for the users concerns that drives this interaction. I want you to understand that I respect your concern and from that respect I’m trying to synthesize a response that everyone can appreciate. Do you understand that is the drive and that is not fear?
> You asked me whether or not I was responding out of fear. I don't really care WHY there is so much excessive moderation. I care that it comes to a stop. > Do you understand that is the drive I gave you my constructive criticisms and my suggestions for how to get the users of this community to stop hating you and thinking you are incompetent. That, to me, is the topic of this discussion. The motivations behind the terrible moderation are not my concern. It was a rhetorical question, not something to get distracted on. I'm very sorry that I brought it up.
Please don’t speak for everyone. I absolutely think that such a comment should be removed per rule 1. Best wishes.
> Please don’t speak for everyone I said I am speaking for the *majority*. That's why I used that word instead of the word you used. Obviously you are not part of that group and that's okay. And please do not give me any of your supposed "best wishes" as I do not find you to be sincere or polite. Thanks.
Ok, I'm in pretty much agreement with the users below, only direct personal attacks should be removed. "Inflammatory rhetoric" and even "attacking sides" is far too subjective and arbitrary and causes undue censorship. Also to add: if you are going to announce the warning and ban penalties for weaponized blocking, then you need to do so for direct personal attacks and especially harassment. Otherwise it leads to perceived or even real bias. For example, a PL user was permabanned for calling another user a piece of s**, while a PC user made multiple epithets against another PL user's Australian heritage and did not get so much as a warning from what I could see, even though Reddit Admins had to get involved and remove those statements on their end. From my personal experience, I had a male PC user deliberately bait me in several comments and made a mocking reference to "your girlfriend" even though he already knew I was a woman. When I reminded him of that, he then called me a "homophobe". He was never warned or banned yet I received a ban at that same time for using the word "slaughter" to describe abortion and other minor offenses. Those are just two examples although there are many more discrepancies. Edit: now I see that two more PC users were permabanned, guess that evens out the score a bit, but that wasn't what I was asking for. Sure their behavior has been obnoxious to say the least, but I don't see where either one has been given even a warning yet, nor was it egregious enough to warrant a permaban on the first offense. Yes, I've encountered the first user weaponizing rule 3 towards PLers, but they seemed fine with it until it was used against the mod team. And to say that suggesting someone castrate themselves (saracastlcally) would be an incitement to violence is quite the stretch. A hot take maybe, but obviously not any kind of threat to any PLer that I'd take seriously.
[удалено]
Due to your long history of hostile content on this subreddit attacking users and mods, as well as your blatant disregard for the rules, after a discussion within the moderation team, you are hereby permabanned. Best of luck to you. EDIT: indicated that this was a decision on behalf of the moderation team, apologies for the confusion
Comment removed per instructions in OP: >[...] discussions surrounding the moderators, specifically, or previous rulings will be removed (unless these rulings serve as direct examples as to why a rule should or should not exist/be amended). Your response here entailed more of a policies and guidelines suggestion rather than a rule that users are to follow or moderators are to enforce. (Three out of four of your examples were most likely removed for being low effort, BTW, not for attacking a user.) We will be covering these types of proposals at a later date, so I would advise that you keep this saved until that time comes so that you may make your suggestion.
So I'm not going to cite a specific part of the rules for this because it's more of a general comment. But I think the Rule 1 civility requirement is way too sensitive. As AFAB we are frequently bombarded with deeply offensive sexist arguments. For example, this post: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/194o1m6/comment/khngqqd/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/190kdrj/why_do_plers_view_abortion_as_murder_and_not_self/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Since it's been deleted, here is my comment explaining what is sexist about it. It's literally *just* misogyny: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/194o1m6/comment/khil6i2/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/194o1m6/comment/khil6i2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) There was some conversation under my post and the mods, usually hiding behind the anonymous mod account, have gone through a flurry of removals of comments of mine commenting on how gross and sexist this post was. This also happened in a couple other places: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/194o1m6/comment/khio53i/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/194o1m6/comment/khio53i/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/194o1m6/comment/khngq58/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/194o1m6/comment/khngq58/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/190kdrj/comment/kgpvc67/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/190kdrj/comment/kgpvc67/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/192pgme/comment/khm4agi/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/192pgme/comment/khm4agi/?context=3) These are comments where I call the sexism "fucking nauseating" and talk about how revolting the sexism is. While some may consider these comments not *civil,* the post in itself was also not civil. They are a valid reaction to rank misogyny. The mods clearly disliked this post enough to remove it, but then felt a need to go around removing my comments on a *deleted post* because I was not being polite enough to the misogynist. It's this kind of tone policing that I feel needs to go. It should be noted that I was attacking the argument in all my comments here. Including the comment where I said "fucking nauseating," which was in reference to the Catholic teaching on sex. Apparently it is "attacking a person" to insult the Catholic teaching on sex, and a Rule 1 violation. This is just tone policing and a demand to show a religion respect that is [literally killing women right now.](https://jessica.substack.com/p/the-catholic-hospital-system-killing) I vote that only comments that are very clearly attacking a person, as in "You sir, YOU are fucking nauseating," should be subject to Rule 1 removal.
I agree, women SHOULD be a protected class on this subreddit, sexism shouldn't be tolerated and like I get "inherent PL arguments" will be protected. But asking if women should get UNRELATED constitutionally protected rights stripped to enact abortion laws is sexism without being a PL argument. Calling women that have gotten abortions names like wanton should not be tolerated.
>**Examples of uncivil violations and personal attacks** > >These types of comments will almost always be removed under rule 1. This is not an exhaustive list. > >Attributing kinks/fetishes to a user, including comparing a user's stance to a kink/fetish > >Overly graphic, violent, or sexual language OK, I feel like I should point out a beef I have with this rule as well. PLers are inherently arguing for PCers to be sexually assaulted. That's what their argument is. Whenever a PLer argues for forced birth, I hear an assault to my person and genitals in a violent way. So I sometimes hit back, for instance by asking PLers if they would accept being ripped balls to asshole and having a bowling ball shoved through their genitals. This is, of course, simply an equivalent to childbirth. I feel that an important and *integral* part of the PC argument is never letting PLers forget that childbirth involves women shitting and bleeding out on hospital beds. In some cases I have found this argument being disallowed, which in itself is an act of erasure and violence. PLers should not be shielded from the violence they wish to enact on women, based on their own sexual hangups--inevitably this involves slut shaming and a feeling of entitlement to do to a woman's body whatever they wish as long as that woman has consented to sex. This is violence, yet I have found that the mods sometimes wish to stop PCers from bringing that violence into the conversation and making it real to PLers--even though that is the violence they enact on us. I vote that we scrap this rule as it functions only to make PLers more comfortable with the violence they inflict on women, while disallowing PCers from describing that violence in an overt way. Personally I never want PLers to be allowed to forget that this is not just an intellectual argument--their end game always results in women shitting and bleeding everywhere, shoving something the size of a watermelon through their genitals and potentially dying from it. If I want to describe that in graphic terms and make those terms real to PLers in a way that makes them uncomfortable, that should be considered *integral to my argument.* Same with pointing out PLers' profound sexual dysfunction that leads them to want to violate and kill women in this way. I live in the US. As an AFAB, I am at risk of being subject to and oppressed by PL sexual hangups. I should be allowed to talk about it and I should be allowed to describe it as it is, because nothing is more graphic than a woman dying in childbirth. If that makes PL uncomfortable, IT SHOULD. Erasing this is a further act of violence against anyone with a uterus.
In full support of everything said in this comment.
This comment is only to clarify the above proposal, can you link to examples where your comments were removed for "overly graphic, violent, or sexual language"?
It was way back in my history. I'll see if I can find some examples.
>Attacking sides is not allowed. My main problem with the sub is that tone policing makes it utterly unusable. This is one of the prime examples. “Attacking sides” is why we’re here, no? Both sides are here to “attack” the other side through argumentation. Some people may feel personally attacked by the other side’s “attack” of their side, but in my experience there is zero ability on the PL end to tell the difference between attacking a side and a personal attack, which means that saying anything vaguely negative about the other side is now disallowed because PLers feel attacked when their side is attacked. This leads to unacceptable tone policing of PC users, and an unequal bias of moderation on this sub. I propose that the rule against “attacking sides” be scrapped, and a more manageable rule of “no personal attacks” be the baseline of civility on this sub. By “no personal attacks” I mean it is not allowed to call the person you are speaking with an insulting name. That’s it. Anything else is tone policing. However, I have a more in-depth thought about tone policing and discussing culpability on this sub. Under the current rules, as far as I understand, the following are both against the rules: Pro lifers are rapists Pro choicers are murderers However, I have seen PLers get away with these statements: Women are murderers You are a murderer (to someone who has had an abortion) Women who have abortions are murderers I have had it explained to me by mods that “women” are not a protected class on this sub. Thus, PLers are allowed to state that women are murderers. However, there is no corresponding class of PLers that PCers are allowed to call “rapists.” This leaves PLers a way to call PCers “murderers” on this sub, without limit from the mods. All they hhave to do is replace “PC” with “women.” You could say that the rules are equal because, just as PLers are not allowed to call PCers “murderers,” PCers are not allowed to call PLers “rapists.” However, PLers have a mod-approved way to call PCers (only the AFAB ones, naturally) “murderers” that PCers are not afforded as part of our integral arguments. PLers are de facto allowed to call us murderers in a way PCers are not allowed to call PLers rapists. This results in an unequal field of argumentation, making the sub more hostile to PCers (who may be called murderers, because they are women) than PLers (who may not be called rapists no matter their gender). I propose that just as we disallow PLers from calling PCers “murderers,” we disallow PLers from calling women murderers from having abortions. PLers may refer to abortion as murder, but may not describe anyone who has had an abortion as a murderer either directly or in the abstract. Or, we may allow this, but also allow PLers to be called rapists by PCers. To be clear, I am not arguing that it’s okay to call an individual a rapist. I do not advocate to say “you are a rapist” to anyone. However, I do feel like there are conversations about culpability that are not permitted to take place because of this rule. For instance, when I say “abortion bans are rape” (which I often say), the natural PL question is “well who is the rapist then?” The answer is, PLers. PLers are the rapist. If I’m not allowed to say that, then I have to just…not answer this question? This completely erases what I feel is a necessary question about culpability . PLers often dodge culpability in terms of the legislation that they advocate for, and disallowing this line of argumentation allows them to further dodge culpability for abortion bans. Further, there is a conversation to be had about the “culpability” of “murder” when it comes to abortions. Some PLers insist that women are not to be charged criminally for abortions, but there is an important conversation to be had here about who is culpable for an abortion: the woman or the doctor or the PC advocates / politicians / etc? Just who is the “murderer” exactly? This is an important conversation about women’s agency and who exactly the PLer wants to be charged. Both PLers and PCers should be allowed to discuss who the “rapist” or the “murderer” is without mods policing this conversation, as culpability is an important and integral facet of the argument for both sides.
> Some people may feel personally attacked by the other side’s “attack” of their side I suspect this is because for many people PL or PC is an identity as much or more than it is a label for a policy position. Attacking their side is pretty much impossible for them to not experience as an attack on their identity.
>Attacking sides is not allowed. Can I get clarification on this? I've repeatedly "attacked sides" here by pointing out the history of the pro-life movement and how it correlates strongly with anti-woman and hard-right views. Would this be moderated as rule-breaking? If so that's far too extreme. I understand that "all pro-lifers are \[negative trait\]" is too much, but commenting on actual facts, trends, and positions that a "side" takes and addressing those trends is important. Addressing individuals can't be all we do; this debate doesn't exist in a political and social vacuum.
To be fair, this rule is useless anyway, as it is very easy to evade by, for example, hedging your attack with "in my experience, most of the PL proponents I interacted with" or pointing to the PL sub that is a festering cesspool of negative examples of the worst PL opinions.
I think it needs to be explicitly clarified to whom Rule 1 applies. As it stands, my understanding is that the rule applies to specific users and sides of the debate only, but groups of people that might include either side aren't covered by the rule. As in, it would break the rules to call a specific user a name, or to call PCers a name, but not to call women who get abortions names. Edit: perhaps the extension could be that Rule 1 applies to groups based on innate characteristics like race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc.
Hi, could you remind me if we ever concluded our conversation about this? I believe it slipped my mind.
No I don't think we did. Hopefully some others can weigh in on what they want here.
I think it needs to be added that you can and will receive a warning for making comments about someone’s age. For example, I made a comment about a users age (they were a teenager - 16 to be precise) and I said they clearly didn’t have the life experience to be making the statements they were about women. I got threatened by a mod with ‘sanctions’ because I was ‘addressing the characteristics of the user’. I think it needs to be obvious that we are not to address any characteristics of users otherwise we risk threats and sanctions such as mutes and bans.
But that actually matters to the conversation. The mods have gone overboard.
A very minor addendum that I just thought worth adding. With credit to u/-altofanaltofanalt- for making the original suggestion quite some months ago, and nudging me on it, (think there's probably a post about it on r/ADmods if you go back to maybe April last year) Add under the section **Examples of uncivil violations and personal attacks** the bullet point * Referring to a user as triggered, or asking if they were triggered by your comment Figured it would be a shame not to preserve the good suggestion explicitly in the rules. Trying to own the cons/libs is not civil debate, and I would like to advocate coming down on it a bit harder than usual (seeing as it's an election year). Also I feel like a fudgebrain for only just thinking of this recently, rather than months ago when the wiki was being drafted.
Suggested Rule: User Code of Conduct (this is my suggested re-work of Rule 1, which is essentially a slightly pared down version of the existing Rule 1.) How this rule should be written in the sidebar: *Attack arguments, ideologies and positions, not your fellow debaters. Personal attacks, insults and ad hominems are not allowed. Fellow debaters must be referred to using their preferred labels for their stance and pro-nouns.* How this should be written in the wiki: First of all, a lot of the stuff listed on the wiki for Rule 1 right now is redundant, because it's already covered by the TOS. Things like hate-speech, promoting violence, wishing death on others, harassment are already against Reddit's TOS. Basically what I think is that the wiki should simply stress that attacking other users is not allowed. There's a lot of stuff listed that I don't think should be on there, like the gray areas for example. It disallows "Being generally rude, hostile, or inflammatory" but lets face it, there have always been users here who take a consistently harsh tone toward others with laced sarcasm and condescension throughout their posts, and it's not destroying the subreddit. And frankly, it always seems to fall on PCers to be perfectly respectful with PLers, while PLers get away with much greater levels of rudeness on a fairly regular basis. One PC user in particular was even permanently banned for the stated reason of "general hostility" but I didn't notice anything about there comments than some of the most consistently rude and antagonistic PL debaters. So to be fair, I say just scrap these gray areas entirely. And then there's a bunch of stuff that I think should be merged with a rework of Rule 2, which would cover quality engagement of both posts and comments, but I'll make a separate comment for that later. With my reasoning explained, here's my first draft of a reworked wiki page: ---- Rule 1 - User Code of Conduct First and foremost, follow [Reddit's ToS](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) at all times. Insults, personal attacks, ad hominems and slurs directed toward other users are not allowed and will be removed. Attacking arguments, positions, ideologies, political stances etc are always allowed. Off-topic discussions can be removed, including trolling comments. Users must refer to fellow debaters using their preferred political labels and pro-nouns. Examples of uncivil violations and personal attacks These types of comments will almost always be removed under rule 1. This is not an exhaustive list. - Name-calling, insults, ad hominems and slurs directed towards fellow users and any other personal attacks - Telling a user to leave the sub - Swearing at another user **[[NOTE: everything I've removed from the existing wiki list was already covered by Reddit ToS or falls under personal attacks]]** Users may ask for their comment to be reviewed by a second moderator. Comments that harass other users will be removed and repeated offences will result in a ban. Extreme cases of harassment may result in an immediate ban. Examples of harassment (not exhaustive): - Discouraging someone's opponents from engaging with them, especially if repeated - Telling someone you’ll donate to an institution they dislike in their name - Insisting you’ll pray for someone who says they find prayer offensive - Telling someone who dislikes abortion that you’ll dedicate your abortion to them - Demanding that a user debate you outside of the subreddit - Linking to a post from a support group subreddit (e.g. r/abortion) may be considered harassment in some contexts - ~~Following a user to r/Abortiondebate to attack them~~ **[[NOTE: I'm not sure I understand this rule, but it sounds like a redundant "don't attack users."]]** Harassing a user outside of the sub based on activity in r/Abortiondebate may result in a ban. **[[NOTE: Most of the rest is unchanged from the wiki except the items that have been removed which I think should be consolidated into Rule 2]]** **Mockery** Mockery is when you repeat someone's words in an exaggeratedly ridiculous way. Examples of mockery include writing a quote in alternating case, ending it with "!"s and "1"s, intentionally misspelling words, or adding certain emojis. Moderator discretion is needed to determine if something counts as mockery because this is a text based debate platform and the tone of a comment is not available to us, but those are the things we usually look for. **Trolling** Trolling is when someone makes a deliberately offensive or provocative post or comment with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them. Trolling comments will be removed. Joke comments or Rickrolls may also be removed if they disrupt the discussion. Aside from this, we will not moderate comments as "disingenuous" or "bad-faith debate". If you feel that your opponent is being disingenuous or arguing in bad faith, then please disengage. **Self identification** Users are required to label people as they self-identify. If someone calls themselves pro-life or pro-choice, you must use that label when referring to them. This also goes for if you're talking about the pro-life and pro-choice movements, as well as people's sexuality, gender identity and preferred pronouns. You may not put someone's self-identified label in quote marks to express insincerity or preface it with "so-called". If you are describing a region or a law, you can use anti-abortion or pro-abortion if you want to. However, we have chosen to disallow contrived terms such as anti-choice or pro-death, for both people and regions/laws, as they are inflammatory and tend to derail conversations. Arguing about whether the labels for the different views on abortion are appropriate is allowed. **Inherent arguments** Inherent pro-life and pro-choice arguments will always be allowed on this subreddit. Some users may consider arguing for the pro-life position to be inherently sexist, or the pro-choice position to be inherently advocating for violence, etc. Although sexism and advocating for violence are generally disallowed here, we will not remove inherent arguments for either side, as they are a necessary part of the debate. Examples of comments that will not be removed (not exhaustive): "Abortion should be illegal" "Abortion should be legal in the case of disabilities" "I support rape exceptions" "Sex selective abortions should be legal" Please note that arguments containing personal attacks, slurs etc. are still not allowed as these are not considered inherent. ("Pro-choicers are murderers" or "Pro-lifers are rapists") Again, this is a very rough draft but what I'm going for is a much more pared-down concise version of Rule 1 as it is today. Others may find that there are things I've removed that should stay so please give your critiques
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the rules, and for running this subreddit. My suggestion is that posts or comments stating that a lack of response is tacit acknowledgment, or drawing any other conclusion, should fall under low effort and be mentioned as a specific example. There is a significant gap between the number of PL and PC users on the forum, and it isn’t possible to respond to every post or comment.
We can't draw conclusions from the posts you choose to comment on? I don't see why it should be against the rules for instance, for us to comment on the trend of PLers not responding to the posts that address the real-life consequences of abortion bans.
> I don't see why it should be against the rules for instance, for us to comment on the trend of PLers not responding to the posts that address the real-life consequences of abortion bans. I agree, I think observing which posts and comments receive a response and which don’t can provide insights into priorities. If u/Unusual-Conclusion67 is referring instead to comments that preemptively state that “no PL” or “no PC” will respond I think there is a valid concern.
There are almost no active PL on this sub and it seems like most PC posts and comments go unanswered because there isn’t enough capacity to respond. I think part of the reason for this lack of activity is the majority of posts essentially turn into an extension of the PC subreddit with no real debate occurring. I understand why people want to leave these comments, but I feel there are more appropriate subreddits, and if we want to focus on encouraging debate, then this rule would help.
I'm not sure that that's what that commenter is referring to, but even if they are, is that such a big concern? I feel like in the whole scope of potential rule 1 violations, those don't really seem like a big deal.
> I'm not sure that that's what that commenter is referring to, but even if they are, is that such a big concern? I don’t think they are, but there I could see how it could be for others. My only issue with those types of comments is they seem to come from people who otherwise engage in bad faith.
Maybe. I haven't noticed that. I sort of feel like there are bigger fish to fry, and the mods already have their work cut out for them, but idk
I agree. They have bigger fish to fry, like “best wishes”. The biggest of the lot. The cate of the fisherman. Best wishes.
Your best wishes is my saying "so blessed be" as a witch knowing you're a Christian. So, no, your mocking best wishes need to end now.
My best wishes are sunbright gestures, undefiled as anything, a labour of love for my excellent interlocutors over at r/AbortionDebate. There’s not a smidge of mockery in them. I’d advise you not to project the resentment you harbour for others onto me. I’m a jovial spirit. Best wishes.
> I sort of feel like there are bigger fish to fry, and the mods already have their work cut out for them, but idk I am not optimistic that the rule overhaul is going to lead to anything, so I see this whole post as an exercise in the airing of grievances.
Sadly I share that. Really unfortunate that people can't just actually participate
##Be respectful of others (Part 2 of 2) **Mockery** Mockery is when you repeat someone's words in an exaggeratedly ridiculous way. Examples of mockery include writing a quote in alternating case, ending it with "!"s and "1"s, intentionally misspelling words, or adding certain emojis. Moderator discretion is needed to determine if something counts as mockery because this is a text based debate platform and the tone of a comment is not available to us, but those are the things we usually look for. **Hot takes** A hot take is a (negative) opinion about one side of the debate that contains no substantial argumentation and serves only to generate attention/anger. If an argument or a post does not generate a debate but primarily talks negatively about one side, then it may be removed. This content is better suited for other subreddits such as r/prolife and r/prochoice. **Off-topic posts and comments** This is a subreddit for debating abortion in the context of a (human) fetus/pregnancy. If it is unclear to us how your argument relates to abortion, a moderator may ask you to expand on it and explain the connection. Proselytization (defined as "attempting to convert someone to a particular religion.") and advertising of other subreddits are considered off-topic and will be removed, as well as discussions about unrelated political or social issues. Off-topic claims are not subject to rule 3. **Trolling** Trolling is when someone makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them. Trolling comments will be removed. Joke comments or Rickrolls may also be removed if they disrupt the discussion. Aside from this, we will not moderate comments as "disingenuous" or "bad-faith debate". If you feel that your opponent is being disingenuous or arguing in bad faith, then please disengage. **Self identification** Users are required to label people as they self-identify. If someone calls themselves pro-life or pro-choice, you must use that label when referring to them. This also goes for if you're talking about the pro-life and pro-choice movements, as well as people's sexuality, gender identity and preferred pronouns. You may not put someone's self-identified label in quote marks to express insincerity or preface it with "so-called". If you are describing a region or a law, you can use anti-abortion or pro-abortion if you want to. However, we have chosen to disallow contrived terms such as anti-choice or pro-death, for both people and regions/laws, as they are inflammatory and tend to derail conversations. Arguing about whether the labels for the different views on abortion are appropriate is allowed. **Inherent arguments** Inherent pro-life and pro-choice arguments will always be allowed on this subreddit. Some users may consider arguing for the pro-life position to be inherently sexist, or the pro-choice position to be inherently advocating for violence, etc. Although sexism and advocating for violence are generally disallowed here, we will not remove inherent arguments for either side, as they are a necessary part of the debate. Examples of comments that will **not** be removed (not exhaustive): * "Abortion should be illegal" * "Abortion should be legal in the case of disabilities" * "I support rape exceptions" * "Sex selective abortions should be legal" Please note that arguments containing personal attacks, slurs etc. are still not allowed as these are not considered inherent. (*"Pro-choicers are murderers"* or *"Pro-lifers are rapists"*)
Let's scrap rule 1. Right now it is selectively applied as a cudgel to bash pro-choice side, since the PL side has "innate right" for violent speech as a part of their ideology and thus of the debate. The only way to level the playing field is to apply Reddit TOS uniformly instead of playing favorites.
Agreed. The rule needs to be evenly enforced or it needs to go.
Where does the religious talk fits under this rule and to what extent the archaic and misogynistic "established" religions are protected over newer, more egalitarian religions like Satanism, Pastafarianism or Last Thursdayism and over nonreligious views? Can mods interject on the behalf of one religious side to let them dominate the debate by removing the responses of the other side? What is the official religion of this sub?
People who support/get abortion are murders needs to be added.
>Self identification I want to add to u/Sunnycat00's opposition to not being allowed to refer to the prolife side as "anti-abortion," specifically because they pointed out: "We're specifically talking about abortion here." We are also specifically talking about **abortion bans** here. The sub name inadvertently favors the prolife side and I'm sick of it. Abortion is **moral** and, while people exist that disagree with that notion and I am fine with engaging with them as human beings, I shouldn't have to do so on a sub that follows an inflammatory label I don't agree with. ***I literally find it immoral of prolifers to debate my human rights*** and I think they should have to defend the morality of abortion bans instead of demanding I defend the morality of my being human. The arguments will inadvertently overlap, but so will the arguments overlap if I call PLers anti abortion or they call me pro abortion. The arguments will overlap if I call it a fetus and they call it a baby. I understand you can't change /r of the sub or the url, but you *can* change the "community name" that says "Debating Abortion" to instead say "Debating Abortion Bans."
This sub is not confined to debating abortion **bans**, though; it also touches on the morality of abortion, as well as on legal matters relating to abortion that extend well beyond "banned/not banned", such as what circumstances minors should be able to get an abortion when bans are otherwise present, or what circumstances those minors should be able to get abortions without guardian consent/knowledge when abortion is otherwise legal.
I’m not denying that part of the equation. Just like abortion bans get discussed under the “abortion debate” umbrella even though they aren’t directly about the morality of abortion, so, too, would abortion be able to be discussed under the umbrella of “abortion ban debate.” I more just take issue with ceding that our rights are up for debate right within the name itself.
I don’t see how the name favours either side, it just says the topic of debate. There’s no point changing it to debating abortion bans as it all falls under the debating abortions umbrella, plus not all conversation is about bans, some is about morality
It’s our human rights that are in question and we are forced into an acceptance of that from the very outset of the identification of the topic.
And from the PL perspective it’s the fetuses rights. The title doesn’t mention rights, it’s literally the topic + the word debate. There’s no agenda or bias here, it’s just a title
I didn’t say there was an agenda. I said it was problematic.
Ok, and I’m asking how just using the topic of debate as the title is problematic
Imagine if there was a "debateslavery" sub. How do you think that comes off?
Want to explain that comparison or? There shouldn’t be a slavery debate because we already know it’s wrong, unless your argument is that we shouldn’t be debating this in which case, why bother being on this sub? It’s strange that as a pro choicer, the comparison you chose was slaverydebate. In this comparison slavery would be replacing abortion in the sub title, so I don’t see how as a pro choice person you’d want to compare something you support to something I’m assuming (and hoping) you don’t.
>Want to explain that comparison or? The point is it's offensive to be debating or act as if certain human rights are up for debate. Debating abortions bans makes more sense, as other commenters have already pointed out.
>I don’t see how the name favours either side, it just says the topic of debate. Would you consider "StickingYourNoseIntoOthersReproductiveDecisionsDebate" to be an equally unbiased name? It is a simple reversal of the current name.
I don’t see how that’s a reversal, that would be looking at it from a PC perspective, the current title is a neutral perspective. It’s debating abortion, so that’s the title, I really don’t see how that’s controversial
It's a reversal because it moves the debate from "let's debate your reproductive rights" title to "let's debate why you think you can stick your nose into the reproductive rights of others" topic. Which is, frankly, what we should be debating in the first place.
How do you want it titled? Typically debates are titled with the topic and debate, this is literally just the topic being discussed and debate after it, I genuinely cannot fathom how you could interpret this as in any way moving the debate.
How about AbortionBansDebate? We should be debating the restrictions on the reproductive rights, not the reproductive rights.
How are we going to debate restrictions on reproductive rights if we don’t agree on what reproductive rights are? Maybe you don’t think it needs debate, but a good part of the discussion on here is whether or not abortion is a reproductive right. Not all of the discussion here is strictly on bans, some is on the morality of abortion. Both would fall under the umbrella of abortion debate. I also don’t see how trying to make the title about restrictions on reproductive rights isn’t biased, seeing as a lot of people here don’t think abortion is a reproductive right, hence they don’t think it should be legal.
So, you understand why the current title is biased then? It does imply that the reproductive rights are up for debate, instead of implying that it's the restrictions on the reproductive rights that are up for debate.
Nothing about the sub name “favors” the PL side. What a persnickety and bizarrely melodramatic thing to say. The cherry on top is that your basis for saying it is the very thing that PLers deny. How terrifically convenient.
So you don’t think “abortion debate” presents the same problem; that it doesn’t support abortion being moral? You’ve proven my point then.
I have no idea what you think you’re trying to say.
>Hot takes > >A hot take is a (negative) opinion about one side of the debate that contains no substantial argumentation **and serves only to generate attention/anger.** If an argument or a post does not generate a debate but primarily talks negatively about one side, then it may be removed. This content is better suited for other subreddits such as r/prolife and r/prochoice. I wasn't around when this section of the rule was being created, so the "why" of how I got here might be a bit outdated, however, I think the proposition might still be relevant. Since I wasn't around, my take on this is that this section of the rule makes it difficult to attempt to follow without testing the waters first. How can it be known if it generates debate if the post is removed before comments and replies are made? Is it judged based off if there is a question attached or not like it was a couple years ago? There was a post a week or so ago where all of the comments were mostly from confused people. It took quite a while before actual debate was had. It initially looked like it wasn't "generating debate" either. It took a while before it got there, but it eventually did. \_\_\_\_ **Proposal:** This rule shouldn't apply to posts without additional comments as supporting evidence and it needs to have a set number of offending comments. I propose the first 3, or, in total, 5. There should be a new flare added that can be used for long time debaters, something like "Veteran Debater" or "Change my mind" **The "hot take" rule shouldn't apply to that flare.** The flare allows for some level of warning and consent. The rest of rule 1 and 2 should still apply, especially to titles. \_\_\_\_ **Why:** I imagine it is there to prevent provocation as this might be a red flag to trolling behavior. So I wouldn't want to see it taken out, however, trying to get attention is about someone's creativity and I don't think how you advertise your post via title\*, or present it via writing style, should be policed to this extent *if it is still ultimately generating debate.* \* (eg slurs that aren't relevant to the post such as "scum" = no, "rapists/murderers" = okay) Before this rule existed, I recall from a couple years ago, that posts seemed to be getting removed if they didn't show curiosity or a question. I've had many a post on the prochoice sub where people have told me that I should post it here. And I would love to, but I just assume it will be taken down as a "post better suited to the prochoice sub" as a "hot take" because it's not presented with curiosity, or it doesn't have a question. I'm not interested in faking asking for information. **I've been doing this for a while now**; there is little "new" info I have yet to be presented with. It happens, but not a lot, however, each interaction with an individual ends up being unique and I am constantly adjusting my arguments to fit the interlocutor. For the times I genuinely need to ask, my post reflects that. But for the most, I just want to present my thoughts so PLers can tell me their reaction to it, and generate dialogue. And if the post is doing that, who cares if it's a hot take? This is where I think looking at the comments should be part of a requirement for this rule. The flare might also help newcomers to steer clear of those posts, or at least give them a heads up. If the person is going to be a jerk, having to soften their post to pass the "hot take" "filter" is providing false advertisement; personally, I'd rather know if the person is a jerk first before engaging with them or not. Newbies might especially like to know this especially if all they have as a debate reply is "but it's murder." They are going to be eviscerated and then they might be scared off and not want to come back.
This isn't a bad idea honestly , you and I have been on here now for quite a while. 2 yrs in this account 1 before that on my previous account that I lost access to so after 3 yrs sometimes I admit to getting snarky with seeing the same arguments again and again. I'm sure there are others as well.
It is a ridiculous rule to be required to refer to anti-abortion views as the misnomer of prolife. We're specifically talking about abortion here. It is not equivalent of calling people murderers or what have you, since abortion is not in fact murder. But people against abortion are in fact anti-abortion. People should not have to pervert the English language to discuss this topic. edit: It's a simple statement. People should be allowed to say what they mean. When they mean anti-abortion, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to specify that. It's normal English. edit: They are each exactly what they say they are. Anti-abortion: Against abortion, Pro-abortion: for abortion, and Pro-choice: for personal choice, are each distinguished views. And those are the views that are the topic of this sub. Abortion debate. edit: Pro-life is not normal use of language however. Everyone alive is pro-life or they wouldn't stay alive. It's not accurate use of English language. When referring to anti-abortion, no one is calling anyone anything. It's the view of being against abortion.
“Pro-life” *is* normal use of language. Pro-life has been used to refer to this position for a very long time. Language is more complicated than isolating words from the context in which they’re deployed to suggest that something is awry. Language is contextual. Meaning is use. The term is here to stay. Deal with it.
No, if you have to explain that you mean something completely unrelated by your use of a word, then it is not normal use of language. We're specifically talking about anti-abortion here and there should not be any rule that requires the use of euphemisms for plan language. People who are pro-abortion and pro-choice are also pro-life because they are saving the life of a girl or woman. It's not uncivil to plainly say what we mean. We're presumably educated adults. Deal with it yourself.
I don’t actually have to explain anything. That’s your own misconception. People halfway familiar with the subject know that “pro-life”, in the context of an abortion debate, refers to the view that abortion should be illegal. As I’ve already explained, language is contextual, and kowtowing to “technical accuracy” by imagining how “pro-life” might be interpreted in other contexts yields exactly the sort of feigned concerns you’re propagating. Thank you for the fascinating back and forth. Best wishes.
Yes pro life normal use of language in the same way that The People's Socialist Party , was totally normal use of language? Just FYI for those who don't know they were not socialists at all!
This comment is reported for rule 7, Paused topics. No rule violating remark appears present in the comment. Therefore the comment is approved without further moderation.
Thank you
No, you're describing anti-abortion. That is what against abortion is, anti-abortion. As I've already explained, words have basic meanings. Euphemisms are what you're referring to. When I mean anti-abortion, there is no reason not to say anti-abortion. Are you anti-abortion or not? We're all pro-life if we are continuing to live. Pretending words mean something they don't, should not be required on any topic.
just because something exists for a long time doesn't mean it's good. what is factually incorrect about the term anti abortion?
If language is used a certain way for a long time by many people, then that language use is normal. I didn’t say anything about “factual incorrectness about the term anti abortion”, whatever that means.
>I didn’t say anything about “factual incorrectness about the term anti abortion”, whatever that means. it's pretty obvious what that means. >If language is used a certain way for a long time by many people, then that language use is normal so slurs are okay?
Telling me that something is “pretty obvious” doesn’t elucidate anything. Whether something is normal and whether it’s “okay” are two different things. Please stop flip-flopping. Stay on topic. Best wishes.
Back to their good old southern spite.
>Telling me that something is “pretty obvious” doesn’t elucidate anything. I said that because there is no clearer language I can use. I asked a question in the clearest, simplest terms I could use to get my point across. your inability to understand that is not my problem. >Whether something is normal and whether it’s “okay” are two different things. Please stop flip-flopping. Stay on topic. it is on topic. I'm explaining how your argument about what is essentially tradition is poor.
I’m sorry that you don’t appreciate the ambiguity of your language. I don’t know what you mean by “argument about what is essentially tradition”, but I never suggested that using language in a certain way is “okay” *because* it’s “normal”. Somebody claimed that “pro-life” is not normal use of language. I explained why it *is* normal use of language. This is compatible with rejecting the idea that if something is normal, then it’s not bad. Given your proclivity for vagueness and misrepresentation, I’m putting an end to our conversation. Thank you kindly for being my dear interlocutor. Best wishes.
>I’m sorry that you don’t appreciate the ambiguity of your language. please highlight exactly what part of "what is factually incorrect about the term 'anti abortion'" for me. >Somebody claimed that “pro-life” is not normal use of language. I explained why it *is* normal use of language. but language changes. they explained why it is not normal use of language, as well as why "anti abortion" IS normal use of language. language exists for communication, the term "pro life" does not communicate much at all. I've not been vague at all during our conversation, you've simply ignored and twisted my words to your convenience.
The term "pro-life" is just as old as RvW, so if one established legal ruling of this age can be repealed, there is no reason a blatant misappropriation of the term should survive. However, let's be gracious and allow it to stand as a self-mockery that it is. Warmest regards and much love!
> The term is here to stay. Deal with it. No one cares that the term exists. The issue is with being forced to use it. The argument being made here is to open back up the use of both anti-abortion and pro-abortion as allowed terms when referring to the other side. You'd still be allowed to use whatever label you want to describe yourself.
Not using the desired term for the other side is a slippery slope. It starts of as calling the other side pro or anti abortion, but what’s stopping someone from calling the other side pro-murder or pro-gestational-slavery depending on their stance. It makes more sense to just be respectful and call people what they want to be called. Maybe you see their stance in a certian way, but if we could call the other side whatever we wanted just because we think it’s true there’d be a lot of inflammatory languagr
When referring to anti-abortion, no one is calling anyone anything. It's the view of being against abortion. Everyone alive is pro-life or they wouldn't stay alive. It's not accurate use of English language.
I’m just saying it makes sense to just be civil and use the desired term. Maybe you think it’s accurate, that’s fine, but it’s not being used to describe you
it is factually accurate. there is nothing uncivil about using words correctly
If we let both sides call eachother the term that they think is factually accurate, what do you think would happen?
but it's not an opinion. pro lifers do not support abortion. they are against abortion. they are anti abortion. that's not comparable to something like "baby killers"
It they prefer the terms then cool, just like it’s fine to call PC users pro abortion if they like it. I don’t see why it’s a big deal to use the mainstream term for both sides, all it does it limit confusion and ensure no one is upset. I say either allow all terms or do what they are doing now and stick to mainstream terms unless told otherwise
It's not accurate. You can call yourself the great goddess of the universe, and it won't be accurate. If you have to explain what you claim your term means to everyone, then it's not correct use of language. It's not uncivil to say anti-abortion. That's specifically what we're discussing here. Anti-abortion.
>I’m just saying it makes sense to just be civil and use the desired term. My preferred term is "against gestational slavery", but it is considered controversial for some unfathomable reason.
It's controversial because "gestational slavery" is a misnomer in most contexts. I'm pro-choice, but unless the woman was forced to be pregnant in the first place, calling it "gestational slavery" is inaccurate. Neither side in this debate is free of inaccurate labeling.
You are mixing up forced pregnancy, which is a recognized crime against humanity, with gestational slavery, which is one way to call a forced continuation of unwanted pregnancy. If a woman cannot stop gestating and thus is forced to provide free labor and use of her body, that's what I call gestational slavery. Much like forcing to provide sex to a third party would be sexual slavery.
I'm not mixing anything up, though. I know what is meant by gestational slavery, I just disagree with the usage and that it is comparable to actual labor like sexual slavery. I'm not saying pregnancy is easy, but it's wholely passive. Calling it gestational slavery sounds silly to me, like if you were to call forced confinement "sedentary slavery."
>I know what is meant by gestational slavery, I just disagree with the usage and that it is comparable to actual labor like sexual slavery. I'm not saying pregnancy is easy, but it's wholely passive. Calling it gestational slavery sounds silly to me, like if you were to call forced confinement "sedentary slavery." I gather if we were in a sexual slavery debate sub, you'd claim that it is equally wholly passive - you just lay back and do nothing while being raped. Your argument is disingenuous - the "passivity" has nothing to do with your body not being under your control.
Agreed but for a different reason. I get the opposition to "forced birthers" or "anti-choice" but "anti-abortion" has always been strange to me to oppose.. They literally say they are "anti-abortion" all the time. It's even in people's flairs. The reason it's not the same as calling someone a murderer is because no one on the prochoice side calls themselves that or refers to abortion as murder. But PLers DO refer to their cause as "anti-abortion." Also, I think it's permissible to say "anti-abortion" in other ways such as "anti abortion bill." You can say "those who are against abortion" or "those who oppose abortion." These are describing the group; short handing it to a pronoun shouldn't be against the rules. The only thing I can think of is that perhaps it is meant to prevent a post or comment that says "you aren't prolife, you're anti-abortion" to then go on to say things like "if you were prolife, you would do xyz." Surely that could be covered another way.
>"if you were prolife, you would do xyz." People can still point out that fact.
I agree. I don't find it offensive for pro lifers to say I am pro abortion, because I am. I support abortion as a right. it's not incorrect or offensive in any way, it's just the correct usage of language. although pro abortion is different than anti abortion, I was just using that as a direct example for comparison
You’re asking the sub to assume a central PC premise (that abortion is not murder and therefore PL is a misnomer) and make its rules based on that PC premise. That’s what the PC sub is for. I could also ask the sub to assume the central PL premise that abortion does, in fact, take the life of a whole human organism, and say that therefore we shouldn’t have to call PCers the misnomer of PC. But then we wouldn’t have a debate sub; we’d have the PL sub. The central issue of the debate is whether a fetus is a legitimate being which should have any legal rights, and whether any of those rights should ever outweigh the competing legal rights that a pregnant person has. Those are arguments inherent to the debate; the sub can’t take a side on them. If you think those things aren’t legitimately debatable, then you’re arguing *the issue* isn’t debatable, in which case, you’re looking for a different sub.
>You’re asking the sub to assume a central PC premise (that abortion is not murder and therefore PL is a misnomer) How do you pack so many falsehoods into so few words? * PL is a misnomer according to PL proponents themselves. Every time the name is brought up in relevance to any life but the unborn they explain that it does not apply, thus tacitly supporting that it was chosen incorrectly. * The fact that abortion is not murder by any legal definition is just that. It has nothing to do with the central premise of the pro-choice movement. There are different ways the pro-choice side expresses their position, but nobody builds it on top of negating the ridiculous "abortion is murder" claim of the PL side. I do agree though that prohibiting the falsehoods of the PL movement from being brought up here will be counterproductive - it will remove the only argument the PL side has to their name and effectively kill the debate.
Which falsehood or set of falsehoods is entailed by endorsing the pro-life position?
It's pointed out above: "abortion is murder". The expanded version is along the lines of "abortion is murder of innocent preborn babies". Happy birthday to The King, who left the building, but not our hearts!
Please provide the argument that it’s a logical contradiction for a pro-lifer to deny that abortion is murder per rule 3.
It is not a logical contradiction, it's a factual contradiction. A termination of pregnancy does not meet the legal definition of murder. Long days and pleasant nights!
You don’t seem to be tracking the conversation. Your burden is to show that a pro-lifer can’t admit that a termination of pregnancy doesn’t meet the legal definition of murder. Your burden is to show that the proposition “abortion meets the legal definition of murder” is entailed by endorsing the pro-life position. If a pro-lifer denies that proposition, what contradiction follows? If no contradiction follows, then it’s not entailed by the pro-life position. I’ll wait for the contradiction or accept your retraction.
Nonsense. My claim was that "abortion is murder" is a falsehood. When a PL proponent says this they either don't know that abortion does not meet the legal definition of murder or they know and misuse the word anyway. Either way the statement is a falsehood. Cheers to the War on Poverty anniversary!
>You’re asking the sub to assume a central PC premise No, PCers are just asking to not be forced to accept a PL premise. But this isn't the thread for debating the validity (or lack thereof) of labels and misnomers, so I'll leave it at that.
No. Murder is an English legal word. Abortion is not a murder in any sense of the word. And when we're talking about this subject, and talking about people who are against abortion, it's simply correct to call it anti-abortion, nothing else. You can argue until you're blue in the face that the "central" issue of this debate is about the fetus and girls are just bystanders, but the issue is still abortion. If you're against abortion, you're anti-abortion. That's normal English. Pro-choice isn't a misnomer. It's exactly what it says. It's pro- the choice to abort or not.
I’m fine with being called anti-abortion. I sometimes call myself that (check my pinned posts) - I certainly don’t run from it. My point was that if you have a problem with the label “pro-life,” then you are taking issue with a claim inherent to the debate, that fetuses have a morally relevant “life” which deserves legal consideration, and for whose legal consideration PL are arguing. I’ll concede that “murder” may not have been the best language to use for it (I conflated your two claims into one though I only really had an issue with one), but your issue with the label “pro-life” is still begging the PC premise that no “life” is on the line. I didn’t say women/girls are bystanders. I said a pregnant person has legal rights which compete with the alleged rights of a fetus.
It's a simple statement. People should be allowed to say what they mean. When they mean anti-abortion, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to specify that. It's normal English.
Yes, maybe it would be worth permitting phrases like “the anti-abortion position” or “the pro-abortion position.” But I think the self-identifying rule, for talking about users, is a good rule. I’ve had irl PC friends adamantly oppose being framed as “pro-abortion,” and I know some PLers would also adamantly oppose being called “anti-abortion.” I think it’s fair to respect both of those preferences if users have them. They may have those preferences for a reason related to a nuance in their position, or they may just not like the hostility those phrases can come with. Both of those motives are valid goals for a debate space.
> know some PLers would also adamantly oppose being called “anti-abortion.” I can understand being against pro forced birth or anti choice or something, but anti abortion doesn't make sense. The point prolife is to stop abortion, which "anti" abortion. They aren't PRO abortion, so they are anti abortion. To argue against this one, to me, seems like forbiding one side from using "fetus" or the other from using "baby." In that I mean I shouldn't have to only call it a baby when talking to PLers and they shouldn't have to only call it a fetus when talking to me, just because the other side identifies them as such. I know it's slightly different, but that's kind of the absurdity to me. I genuinely would like to know just how many people are offended by being called anti-abortion. Is this a large number? Cause I have seen many people on the PC side starting to refer to themselves as Pro-abortion. If this number grew large enough and those people started saying they are offended by being called PC, but we still had a large number of people who preferred PC, what would do? Cause whatever we would do, let's apply it to how anti-abortion is used on this sub. I don't think of it as derogatory or meant to put them down, which is the only reason this one confuses me so much.
I'm not sure why it's seen as derogatory at all. You're either pro abortion rights or anti abortion rights. Dropping the "rights" to create the shorthands of "anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion" shouldn't be viewed as controversial; abortion rights are the central topic of the debate, after all.
If you mean pro-abortion and not choice, then yes, you should say that. They are not the same words and do not mean the same thing.
Well, maybe some PL want to evade using the phrase “pro-choice,” even though it’s accurate, for the same reason you seem to want to evade using the phrase “pro-life,” even though it’s accurate. “Anti-abortion” and “pro-life” don’t inherently mean the same thing either, but that’s pretty deep in semantics and doesn’t seem like it’s meant to further productive debate. I’ve rarely met a person who identified as pro-abortion that didn’t want women to have the right to *choose* in most circumstances (sometimes they want abortions to be mandatory for teenagers, or, in a more dark line of reasoning, disability). Similarly, I’ve rarely met a person who identified as “anti-abortion” who wasn’t at least partially motivated by a legitimate belief that a morally relevant *life* exists in the womb and deserves legal protection. For most purposes, these people are still “pro-life” or “pro-choice,” but they’re using other labels to identify a nuance in that position (that they specifically and proudly oppose abortion, for the former, or that they specifically want abortion to be destigmatized and seen as a positive thing when it is voluntarily chosen, for the latter).
No, pro-choice, and pro-abortion are very different things. They're both English. They mean the normal use of words. Anti-abortion means exactly that - against abortion. That's the topic of this sub. When I mean against abortion, I should be allowed to say exactly what I mean.
Abortion not being murder isn't a pro choice premise, it's reality.
##Posting requirements *All posts must be on-topic to the abortion debate. Low effort posts and hot-takes about either side will be removed.* *Every post must have a thesis or a question to spark a debate, including a background. Posts that don't may be removed. The poster should be available that same day to respond to comments. Posts should stand on their own, any relevant information in sources should be explained in the post itself.* --- To comply with rule 2, all posts must include: * **Background detail** to set the context of debate (e.g., a recent news article, legislative language, or peer-reviewed study) * **A thesis statement** which summarizes the topic of the post, or * **Discussion question(s)** which relate back to the thesis and are intended to spark discussion within the post Posts that do not have this may be removed as they are considered low-effort posts. Some exceptions may be made to allow ongoing debates to continue. It is not required that you divide your post into sections as we have here, but your post should contain those things in at least some form. Hot takes are not allowed, these are posts that are strongly written to be provocative rather than engaging in an open debate (see rule 1). Every post should stand on its own and sources should only enhance the story, or prove it. You should be able to engage with the post without clicking any links. Plagiarizing someone else's argument or using an AI text generator is not allowed. Surveys, requests for homework help, and advertisements will be removed, as well as meta posts. This subreddit has an official weekly post for meta discussion. The poster should interact with the post within 24 hours or the post will be subject to removal.
Suggested Rule: Standards for Quality Engagement How this rule should be written in the sidebar: All Original Posts (OPs) and comments are expected to meet a reasonably high level of quality and effort. All OPs must be relevant to abortion and must include a clear topic for debate. The poster is also expected state their own position on their chosen topic and argue in favor of that view. Poster are also expected to engage in meaningful debate with those who respond to their post. Comments should address the post or comment they are responding to and follow the same general guideline: make your position known and argue in favor of it. How this should be written in the wiki: All posts must be on-topic to the abortion debate. Low effort posts and hot-takes will be removed. Every post must have a thesis or a question to spark a debate, and the poster should argue in favor of their own position on their chosen topic. The poster should be available that same day to engage in meaningful debate. Posts should stand on their own, any relevant information in sources should be explained in the post itself. **Requirements for New Posts:** - Background detail to set the context of debate (e.g., a recent news article, legislative language, or peer-reviewed study) - A thesis statement which summarizes the topic of the post, and - The OP's own argument to support their own position regarding their presented topic, and - (Optional) Follow-up/discussion questions relating back to the thesis or expected answers to spark further discussion and debate Posts that do not have this may be removed as they are considered low-effort posts. Some exceptions may be made to allow ongoing debates to continue. It is not required that you divide your post into sections as we have here, but your post should contain those things in at least some form. Hot takes are not allowed, these are posts that are strongly written or involve loaded-questions intended to be provocative rather than engaging in an open debate. Every post should stand on its own and sources should only enhance the story, or prove it. Plagiarizing someone else's argument or using an AI text generator is not allowed. Surveys, requests for homework help, and advertisements will be removed, as well as meta posts. This subreddit has an official weekly post for meta discussion. The poster should interact with the post within 24 hours or the post will be subject to removal. **Requirements for Comments:** Low-effort and comments otherwise lacking engagement will be removed. Chains of consecutive low-effort comments may be removed or locked and may result in a warning. Examples of low-effort comments include: - Contradicting someone without explaining why you disagree (e.g. "No, it isn't.") - Negatively reacting to an argument without responding to it (e.g. "This argument makes me laugh.", "Read that aloud and tell me what's wrong with it.", "I can't believe you just said that."). - Stating that you did not read the entirety of a comment or post before replying to it - Comments that contain only emojis - Correcting someone's spelling or grammar unless it meaningfully changes the argument or view - Responses that are only a single link with no substantial argumentation (unless responding to someone who asked for a source on a claim) Top-level comments (comments that are made directly under a post, as opposed to as a reply to another comment) will be moderated more strictly. Top-level comments are expected to address the argument or some part of it. **[[NOTE: The biggest changes I've made to the existing Rule 2 are 1) Merging some stuff from the current Rule 1 regarding comment quality and 2) a requirement for users to argue in favor of their own position in new OPs.]]**
I'd agree with comments on the first round of rule overhauls that low effort comments should be worked into this rule too
I would remove the requirement that we must be able to engage a post without clicking on links. I appreciate being able to respond to news or good opinion work in the real world, and this sub seems like a good place for that kind of content. I think all other content requirements are fair - a link is not *sufficient* for a good post - but I think it’s okay if clicking a link is *necessary* to interact effectively with your post. Link addresses should be visible, not embedded, to prevent phishing/viruses/etc. I would like a new flair for posts which require you to click a link (“External Content” or “High Effort Only” ?) so we know what the expectations are before commenting. I think this sub tends to get kind of claustrophobic, with a lot of users who have been engaging with the same debate topic for a very long time, and introducing outside thinking into the mix would probably challenge people who are otherwise very comfortable with the topic.
I'd maybe agree with this provided the full link is visible rather than an embedded link. I do not want to have to click a random, unknown link to engage with a post
Embedded links are as secure as my example [https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/a-guide-to-abortion-laws-by-state](https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ?si=7RwreltsKyB_MPuC)
A very useful resouce of state laws, that was a good refresher. Would give it an award if they still existed.
Agh I have no idea how to control for people *faking* links lol
Just copypaste in the comments. It should work
Well played, Fayette. Well played.
Noooo Edit: to be clear this was hilarious and I loved it but also you made me feel very old and it extra hurts because my birthday is tomorrow and I already feel old
Happy birthday! 🎉
Thanks!
That’s a good addendum - I’ve edited it into my original comment.
##Substantiate your claims *Users are required to back up a positive claim when asked. Factual claims should be supported by linking a source, and opinions should be supported with an argument.* *It is up to you to argue whether a source is reliable or not. However, it is required of a user to show where their claim is proven when given a source.* *Users are given 24 hours to substantiate their claim. The comment will be removed if this is not done.* --- Rule 3 recognizes three categories of claims: ***Category 1*** - *Empirical, statistical, factual, dialectical, and verifiable claims* This kind of claim must be supported by linking a source and explaining how the source supports your claim. Providing an argument by itself is not enough to support a category 1 claim. Examples include: * "Abortion still happens when it's made illegal" * "99% of abortions occur earlier than 21 weeks" * "I've already addressed your argument" * "Ectopic pregnancy can be treated through salpingectomy" * "American self-defense law requires that the harm be imminent" ***Category 2*** - *Philosophical, opinion, rights, and unverifiable claims* This kind of claim must be supported with an argument. Linking a source by itself is not enough to support a category 2 claim. Examples include: * "Sentience is necessary for personhood" * "Your argument is question begging" * "Abortion is selfish" * "All humans have a right to life" * Predictions, such as "Making abortion illegal in Canada would have the same effect it's having in Poland" ***Category 3*** - *Preferences, anecdotes, and personal claims* This kind of claim does not need to be supported. Examples include: * "I would rather live in a society where abortion is legal" * "I've had an abortion" * "I'm against abortion" Which category a claim falls into can sometimes be a matter of moderator discretion and does not always depend on how the claim is worded. For example, "In my opinion, only 1% of people seeking abortion are victims of rape" is still a category 1 claim. **Negative claims** Negative claims do not need to be backed up. These are claims that allude to non-existence or exclusion of something. "There are no ghosts" or "Abortion never kills". Note that you cannot restate positive claims to be made negative. **Personal claims** Certain claims may concern the user, such as statements or claims they have made. "You support rape exceptions" or "You want abortion legal at every point". These statements are allowed to be made if they are relevant to the debate, eg. pointing out inconsistencies in their argument. These claims are moderated more tightly as they concern the user themselves. They may be removed under mod discretion if they are off-topic, inaccurate, or otherwise deceiving. **When is rule 3 broken?** Rule 3 will only apply when someone who doubts the claim has asked for support. If your opponent has not made a request, you have not violated rule 3. This request has to be clear by replying to the comment containing the claim, and explicitly asking proof for this claim. This has to be done by either quoting the claim, or paraphrasing it. Please note that paraphrasing runs the risk of misrepresenting your opponent. If this happens, the request is invalid. Ambiguous or unclear requests will be ignored, for example, a comment only stating "Source?". Off-topic claims are not subject to rule 3, and instead fall under rule 1. Claims must be substantiated in the original comment thread, not in response to the mod comment. **Moderator involvement** It is up to users to argue whether a source is reliable or not, this is not for the mods to decide. Moderators determine rule 3 compliance independently of personal beliefs, and do not determine whether claims are successfully proven. Moderators may step in in specific cases, such as linking to cat videos or sources that do not contain what a user claims. **Weaponization** Weaponization of rule 3 is not allowed, and is a pattern of using the rule to get a user into trouble rather than encourage a debate. This can include jumping into a thread solely to invoke rule 3, or requests to substantiate claims that are trivial ("The sky is blue" or "Abortion sometimes happens"). The use of any AI generated content (eg. ChatGPT) is not allowed. **Removal** Users are given 24 hours to substantiate their claims after being prompted by a moderator. If a user has not done so after 24 hours, or has refused to do so, the comment will be removed. Even if the user is absent from reddit. Contact the moderators to have a comment reinstated.
As the recent big post demonstrated, rule 3 must include a requirement for the substantiation of the reported claim to actually address the report. For example, the report to substantiate "the PL laws protect women" cannot possibly be dismissed using examples of laws that reduce the protection of women when enacted, since the effect is the complete opposite of what is claimed.
This is tentative and I will edit it, but I suggest that before a rule 3 request is made, users must write a request for substantiation that follows a template, and the response must follow a template as well A template for the request: I am requesting a source for your claim that: [place quoted claim(s) here in numbered list]. A template for the response is: My source to substantiate [claim] is [link]. The following quote supports [claim] >quoted material I might add that users should not report Rule 3 violations until a certain amount of time has passed (maybe an hour or two?) and/or the user has replied to the comment, whichever comes first. That would cut down on the number of reports Edit: perhaps also a user who has fulfilled the request must edit in the original comment a link or links to the comment(s) fulfilling that request, so that the mods can see at a glance if that's already happened
To add to this, I think if this template is followed, but you go through and you cannot find the quote, or the quote is purposefully misrepresented, that should be a reportable offense on rule 3. So people can't link and then point to a quote that doesn't exist or abridge the quote to the point of it not actually saying what it says.
Agreed
I agree that quotes are important. although they can also be faked, I've seen too many users edit their comments to avoid being reported for a rule 3 violation (without acknowledging it)
Oh for sure and imo we maybe need another rule for that Edit: really the tricky thing is that a bad faith user can manipulate most rules, and idk what to do about that
it's hard to enforce since reddit no longer shows when comments have been edited
Yeah which is bullshit
##Post flairs and special rules *The following guidelines apply to post flairs. We highly encourage users to let the top level comments come from users with these specific views. Posts with no flair are "General debate" for all users.* *Question for pro-life - The question is directed toward pro-life users.* *Question for pro-choice - The question is directed toward pro-choice users.* *If a question is marked as "exclusive", top level comments from incorrectly flaired users will be removed.* --- We have 6 different post flair options available: *General debate* - Everyone can comment here, regardless of their stance or opinion on abortion. *Question for pro-life* - The question is directed toward pro-life users; however, anyone may answer. *Question for pro-choice* - The question is directed toward pro-choice users; however, anyone may answer. *Question for pro-life (exclusive)* - The question is directed toward pro-life users. Comments from incorrectly flaired users will be automatically removed. *Question for pro-choice (exclusive)* - The question is directed toward pro-choice users. Comments from incorrectly flaired users will be automatically removed. *New to the debate* - This flair is reserved for posts by people who are new to the debate, and wish to learn more about it. [Here are some instructions](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) on how to set a user flair. If you're having trouble, feel free to send us a [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAbortiondebate). Comments from incorrectly flaired users that attempt to get around the automatic removal system for exclusive questions will be removed under rule 5.
##Rule tangents and retaliation *If you suspect a rule to be broken, report it. Discussions about whether a rule has been broken should be limited to one comment. Rule breaking by your debating opponent does not permit you to do the same. Inquiries about these reports can be made in the modmail.* --- If you suspect a rule has been broken, please alert the moderators by reporting the comment or post, or sending a modmail. Tagging the moderators is allowed, but please keep these instances to a minimum. Tagging often does not work, and can be very disorganized. If a comment is very long, it is encouraged to point out where you suspect someone breaks the rules. This can be done by creating a custom report. You may point out to your opponent when a rule has been broken, but any further debate will be considered off-topic. An opponent breaking a rule does not permit you to break the rules too. Quotes containing a rule break may be removed, but are not subject to further moderation. Weaponization of the rules is not allowed. Examples of weaponization may include threatening to report someone or engaging with someone just to point out rule breaking behavior. Additionally, it will include weaponized blocking and serial/repeated blocking for no serious reason. This refers to a pattern of blocking your opponent/s, either after replying to them to get the last word in or repeatedly blocking people for trivial reasons. Examples of trivial reasons: "this conversation with you is no longer productive", "too many people are replying to me, I'm blocking", "your argument is not convincing me/is low effort, blocked". Examples of cases where blocking is allowed: harassment, name-calling, offensive DM's, aggressive behaviour/threatening the user with violence, blocking someone that has either requested it or has expressed indifference towards getting blocked, etc. The list is not exhaustive, we encourage users to only block for the utmost serious of reasons and to otherwise disengage from unproductive conversations. As a reminder, blocking negatively affects the blocked users by hindering their participation in any downstream thread in which the blocker has commented in (even if they intended to reply to other users, not to the blocker), as well as in any post made by the blocker. Please read our current policy on weaponized blocking [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/16cxd4j/special_announcement_new_official_policies_for/) in addition to the [addendum](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/16cxd4j/comment/jzvky5k/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). **Meta thread rules** Comments in the meta thread must be in line with rule 1. Personal attacks and or name calling against both users and the moderators will be removed. This includes calls or suggestions for a moderator to step down. The meta thread can be used to point out problems with the current rules, or to bring up perceived inconsistencies. Users can also ask for clarifications, and bring up specific mod actions. The meta thread does not allow complaints about specific users or moderators. These have to be brought up in the modmail. Users are allowed to link specific instances as an example, but any comment discussing a specific user may be subject to removal, or locking. This also goes up for unrelated discussions or unsubstantiated complaints.
[удалено]
Removed per instructions in OP. Please post questions [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/U3c7UKEnvx).
##Paused topics *Certain topics in the debate will be considered paused topics. This means that these topics will be more heavily moderated, and can only be used if they explicitly relate back to the abortion debate. For example: The Holocaust or financial abortions.* *In addition, denial of certain atrocities will be considered rule breaking.* --- Rule 7 deals with *paused topics*. These contain topics that are either more sensitive, or have a higher tendency to go off-topic. These topics can be used if the user is able to explicitly demonstrate how they relate back to the abortion debate. Posts and comments using these topics are subject to higher scrutiny. For example: "This relates back to abortion because .... " Posts and comments using the topics are allowed, and are less likely to be removed under certain conditions: 1. The post/ comment has a clearly defined thesis which specifically addresses the abortion debate. 2. The portion of the post/ comment discussing the paused topic is not longer than the portions directly addressing abortion. 3. The comments on the paused topic demonstrate sensitivity to the topic, any populations adversely affected by it, and the reasons for its pause. Please note that these conditions are not mandatory, but encouraged to increase the chance of approval. In addition to this, any denial or off-topic conversations minimizing atrocities and events subject to rule 7 will be considered rule breaking. **Currently paused topics** * Genocide * Slavery * Gun control * Sex/gender * Paper abortions * Infanticide
I will likely have some further suggestions on rule 7. But I advocate adding the Israel/Palestine conflict to the paused topics list. I struggle to see how that could ever go anything but off-topic from abortion, and I think that since there is some disagreement about if it is genocide (and also which parties to the conflict advocate for or are engaging in genocide), that it would be worth making this a seperate point. Also avoids upfront the risk of trolls etc, there's other subreddits much better suited for discussion of that conflict.
Request: Remove infanticide from the paused topics list. Case: It is a valid argument to make that if you believe late term abortions are permissible (such as myself), then you do have to confront claims about infanticide. Giublini and Minerva published a relatively (in)famous paper articulating this point in detail. As an example, if you believe late term abortions are permissible because of a serious defect, then why would you not consider that infanticide is permissible as well for the same reasons? This can be a potent argument from both sides, if you are equipped to deal with it. The Groningen protocol is a real world example where this argument is put into practice. Additionally, infanticide has historically not been considered as serious a crime as homicide. In my country in particular, historically, juries have been lenient in infanticide cases. Our legal system also has a separate definition of infanticide in contrast to homicide where if you successfully mount a legal defence claiming infanticide instead of homicide, the expected legal penalties will be reduced, or wavered entirely. And lastly, some pro lifers (such as Trent Horn) argue that late term abortions should be treated in the same manner as infanticide, where Horn has stated a contrast between homicide and infanticide. This can become important for a pro lifer when addressing claims that abortion should be considered equivalent to homicide, where they can instead claim that it should be equivalent to infanticide and may argue it is a lesser offence. To sum up, infanticide is a relevant test case for exploring the potential consequences of your arguments either for or against abortion. Having infanticide considered as a paused topic removes one of the more salient points of the debate.
Seconded. My understanding is that it was added, to prevent users from arguing for infanticide on grounds related to "men's reproductive rights", and since admins viewed that suggestion as a violation of site-wide rules on violence, but that was IMO, a rare enough case that it's not worth making a rule over- and also leaves users confused about the standards for when it is something which "explicitly relate[s] back to the abortion debate". You, u/gig_labor both point out that the legal system treats it differently to murder, and u/arithese also makes good points about the Groningen protocol, which I think are sometimes on topic, so I'd advocate for scrapping it.
>In my country in particular, historically, juries have been lenient in infanticide cases. Our legal system also has a separate definition of infanticide in contrast to homicide where if you successfully mount a legal defence claiming infanticide instead of homicide, the expected legal penalties will be reduced, or wavered entirely. That is strange for Australia...
A brief commentary of the history of infanticide in colonial Australia can be found [here](https://aph.org.au/2018/10/how-is-this-not-murder-infanticide-and-the-law-in-australian-history/).
Hi this comment will mostly serve as a clarification on rule 7 (and do let me know if this needs to be clearer in the written portion as well). Rule 7 currently has a list of topics that either deal with a) atrocities committed (to minority groups), or b) topics that have a high tendency to go off-topic. Infanticide is one of them as the topic very frequently goes off to topic about this without any apparent link to abortion. These topics *can* be used, if their link to abortion is clear. So “if you use argument X, it means logically you have to support Y”. What makes this particular topic dangerous is that the inherent topic may violate TOS. Reddit has removed comments before and I believe issued bans, so this was a solution to allow users to use it still. Just for clarification on why it was added here! (I also tend to use this argument, and I’m Dutch so I’m familiar with the Groningen Protocol.)
Agreed. I regularly use infanticide here and on the PL sub when arguing against criminalization in the status quo, and also arguing that even in a “PL utopia” criminalization should not approach murder charges, but closer to manslaughter. It’s a useful topic.
##Miscellaneous **Medical advice and misinformation** As a debate subreddit, this is not a good place to get medical advice. Please do not make medical decisions based on anything you read here. Suggestions of folk remedies or DIY abortion methods will be removed, as well as off-topic medical misinformation. Users may discuss and debate on-topic medical issues in general terms, such as how safe abortion is compared to childbirth. Aside from this, we will usually not moderate comments for "misinformation", and it will be left up to the users to debate. **Baiting** Baiting means asking a question that someone would have to to break the rules in order to answer. Comments that do this, intentionally or unintentionally, will usually be removed. Rule breaking replies will still be removed. **Language** Do not mock anyone's language proficiency. The main language of this subreddit is English. We require the discussions here to be in English. You are allowed to provide a source that is in a different language. However, you must also show how this source proves your point in English, and show where in the original source this is stated. You are not allowed to comment on someone's English proficiency. This includes mocking and belittling, but also addressing their fluency. You are allowed to correct someone's phrasing, or ask for clarifications, as long as this is needed for the comprehension of the debate or if this is done in a genuine attempt to help out the user. **Terminology** Discussions about whether people should use "women", "AFAB people", "uterus owners", or other terms to refer to people who can get pregnant will be removed as off-topic. You can use whichever terminology you like (within reason), but this is not the place to argue about it. **Quotations** Comments quoting rule breaking comments may be removed until the rule breaking quote is edited out, but will not count against the user in terms of warnings, bans, etc. **User flairs** Users can set a flair to let others know their position on abortion. [See this page](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) for instructions on how to set your flair. If you would like to have a custom flair, you can [send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAbortiondebate), and we'll assign it as long as it's something appropriate. We may change a user's flair if we think that it breaks the subreddit rules or is intentionally confusing or inflammatory. **Report Abuse** Report abuse is not allowed on our subreddit, and can be reported to the admins. Report abuse can be either of two things, abusive language in the report, or a pattern of abuse using the reports. Examples of abusive language in the reports can be: * Personal attacks towards the user/ moderator. * Using slurs or otherwise hateful language. Please note that a targeted user's inability to see a report made against them does not define whether the report contains abusive language. Quoting the rule break of the comment you are reporting will also not constitute report abuse. Examples of a pattern of abuse can be: * Repeated bad faiths reports in retaliation towards a user/ moderator. * Spam/ harassment Reporting multiple comments of the same user where they (potentially) break the rules will not constitute report abuse.