People are allowed to post stuffed animals, clothespins, chairs, or whatever, there's no reason to report this
I'd like to see a tag for stuffed animals, at least. It's so misleading, you expect to see an animal with the thumbnail and a title like "baby sloth," instead it's just a toy posed as if it were real.
I changed the flair.
These get posted so rarely that I'm not really sure I see a point in setting up an actual flair system for them, though.
You can show Trump's subservience to Putin in a million other ways without bringing homosexuality into the equation. While liberals may be attempting to condemn Trump and Putin, they are doing it in a way that suggests Trump and Putin are a part of our lifetsyle/culture. They're our enemies, and we're being conflated with them.
Gay people get mad about this for the same reason everyone on this subreddit gets mad about this billboard: it's conflating two very different ideas that are directly antagonistic to each other.
Would you be making the same arguments if it were Sara Palin or Elizabeth Warren instead of Putin?
If it were Sarah Palin and Elizabeth Warren being depicted in a lesbian relationship? You're going to have to elaborate on both the question and your reason for asking.
No, if either one of them were depicted in a dominant sexual position to Trump.
What I'm trying to get at that I think the image is more about sex negativity than homophobia.
Also I think part of the idea is to use homophobe's homophobia against them. Like when two men go kiss directly in front of a group of homophobes.
edit OK, thread unlocked. Remember if you see URL shorteners to Tshirt stores, it's most likely spam. Please hit the report button on those so we can take action more quickly. Thanks /edit
Thread temporarily locked because a ring of spammers decided to try to spam their spammy tshirt links all over the thread. Don't click their spam, here's the original link for this shirt:
Generally on Reddit, tshirt links are spam, so please be wary. We'll unlock it once we get it cleaned up.
Serious question that you definitely are not obligated to answer: do you even like this sub anymore? I was under the impression that it was always supposed to be cool and interesting pictures. Now it seems like it's just being used by political trolls like op to sew unrest.
Serious answer: I'm subscribed, but I'd rather not see the content either.
But every time we bring up this policy in our backroom (because we always get several modmails about it) I always take the stance that we shouldn't ban certain topics. I think it opens the door to ban other stuff that we don't like just based on our opinion about it, and I'm against that.
I'm in favor of letting the votes decide as much as possible, which is why I tell people to hang out in /new and vote for the content they're more interested in.
I hope that makes sense
Hey I know I’m late to the discussion but I wanna give my two cents regardless. I totally understand the slippery slope argument you’re bringing up, if we ban political posts then what’s next for the chopping block?
I believe however that this issue is far greater than any other issue that has been presented before. Some people may not like content such as progress pics or such infesting the subreddit, but I genuinely don’t think I’ve ever seen a topic such as political pics, i.e. Trump create such hatred and toxicity within the comment section of a post.
While I understand that you don’t want to police what people can say and do, I truly think this is a different beast than the issues before and I think a good compromise is to ban these types of political pics until Trump is out of office because they will just keep coming out and the toxicity will keep infecting r/pics
I hope you reconsider your stance regarding this issue because I really believe it would be for the better if we didn’t see this content anymore for the time being.
We're painfully aware of the divisive nature of politics right now. Half of the mods here aren't even from the US, and we're all just sick of the fighting.
We felt the best approach for these types of posts was to flair them "US Politics" and allow people to filter them if they choose to do so. There should be an explanation of how to do so stickied to the top of most of those posts.
What did David do?
He took /r/kotakuinaction private, demodded the other mods, and made an announcement that it was because the community was too toxic.
The admins opened it back up, took his mod perms, and readded the other mods.
Here's a bunch of threads about it if you want to read more:
The guideline is that you shouldn't ban someone from one sub for breaking a rule in another.
Problem solved: r/YourOnlySubreddit
From the sidebar:
It is against the rules of this subreddit to participate in any other subreddit. Doing so will get you banned here.
Therefore banning any user for participating in a subreddit besides this one is now clearly against reddit’s moderator guidelines.
We know management of multiple communities can be difficult, but we expect you to manage communities as isolated communities and not use a breach of one set of community rules to ban a user from another community.
You're misreading that guideline, exactly as I stated.
I think you are misreading my solution, and really it's more of a joke than anything I expect to work.
But also it seems clear to me that the guidelines were intended to prevent the very practice you describe:
I think the ideal is that we are not being pre-emptive with bans. I would rather that people were only being banned from communities where they were active, and not from communities they have never visited. However, it's a bit different when we're dealing with a fully automated spambot. We don't want you pre-emptively banning 'people', but I don't have a strong feeling about protecting a bot's feelings.
I know the admins don't like the autobans, and to be completely honest, I don't really like them either.
But the entire point I'm trying to get across is that they're not expressly against the rules. That blurb in the Community Guidelines isn't saying what a lot of people think it says.
Oh god it's you. You're all over this subreddit, and not in a positive way.
Of course it's not in a positive way here. It wouldn't make sense if it were.
OK my man, I got you. I think.
Gamer wasn't usually an issue before. Like I said, it should just mean you play video games... Before you may have been billed as a basement dwelling nerd, but that's true of most nerdy things. D&d players got this, comic book fans, etc. But since gamer gate, it has become a real issue. And it's sad. It's just a medium of entertainment, and like all mediums, it can be used to make corporate shlock or it can be used to make art. (ps, night in the woods is amazing)
The issue happened when gamer gate came about. Gamergate originally happened when a female game developer made a game about her depression, and an accusation came out that a particular gaming website gave it a 9/10 or whatever because she slept with the guy who wrote the article. I'm like 99% sure this was never actually confirmed or not, but this attracted all the people who a. Hate women and b. Love video games, which is a vinn diagram that is not a circle. In the name of "integrity in journalism", they attacked this woman and others, along with gaming journalists (usually female ones). These incel types started to blame women for all the "problems" in gaming and "bias" in game journalism. Some would pipe up that gaming journalism is more tainted by companies paying for reviews, but the anti-feminist types made sure to push the crusade right into "giving women death and rape threats" territory. Also, there was racism. Lots of racism.
Another issue is the online harassment women usually face when playing games, or real life harassment at conventions. It's been part of the gaming community basically since kids had to buy NES in the "boys" isle of the toy section. But that doesn't mean everyone who is a gamer is a misogynist - hell, about 50% of people who play games are women.
Basically, shitty gamers are a vocal minority that make the whole thing look bad. Most people who are the most vocal about it, take the most pride and identity in being a gamer, seem to also be the Gamergate types. People like you and me who play games but aren't fuck wads seem to be trying to shy away from the label
The accusation about sleeping with the reviewer to get a better review was made by her angry ex boyfriend, it's baseless.
Friendly reminder that on this subreddit cows are friends not food.
While you may still have a friendly discussion about the merits of veganism vs omnivorism, low effort "still tasty tho" comments will be removed under Rule 5, and you may be banned, flogged, mocked, and tarred (but not feathered, chickens are friends too).