4 ms·

> If you don't like it, fine, I feel little compulsion to engage. If things get nasty, I just mute or block. I do this on Reddit. If there's a back and forth a

> If you don't like it, fine, I feel little compulsion to engage. If things get nasty, I just mute or block. I do this on Reddit. If there's a back and forth and I feel like the person replying is not commenting in good faith then I'll just block them.

millzlane 4y ago
I just say "oh okay".
- TheCleric 4y ago
  oh okay
Consultant32452 4y ago
My favorite trope on Reddit is when you explain something clearly and people respond that you haven't given an example or explained or whatever. It's not that you haven't explained, they just don't accept your explanation and demand more. I've taken to increasingly absurd responses to this trope. I often explain with perverse metaphors involving their mothers. Highly recommend finding your own flavor of fun responses to this ludicrous bad faith response.
- wlesieutre 4y ago
  And an obsession with sources. Which makes sense sometimes, but you can tell someone your favorite color is orange and they're not happy unless there's a Reuters article about what color you like.
  - mcronce 4y ago
    Write a Medium article about your color preferences and link it. You might even make a few cents!
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    Reddit has a massive hard-on for external authority in any conceivable context so it shouldn't be surprising that they want a citation if you say the sky is blue.
  - freeflight 4y ago
    I see nothing wrong with an "obsession" with sources. The www was very much built on sharing http links as a form of citation, no reason not to make use of such an fundamental and established function. Imho the opposite has become a much worse issue; People casually claiming the most extraordinary things, far outside the realm of opinions, with not even an attempt to source it.
    - johnnyanmac 4y ago
      It makes sense on Wikipedia. But meanwhile, Reddit seems powered by anecdotes but will ask for a source when you bring opposition. Motte and Bailey.
    - bee_rider 4y ago
      A bad-faith request for a source is just an attempt to waste the other person’s time. If a source is requested, it should be obvious or explained where the source fits into the over-arching argument, it might require just as much work on the asker’s side, to establish why it is necessary. There’s also the risk that the request for a source just devolves into an argument about the quality of the source, which basically torpedos the discussion.
      - freeflight 4y ago
        > A bad-faith request for a source is just an attempt to waste the other person’s time. Why not add a source to begin with, so others don't have to "waste" their time asking for one/looking one up? With anything that's citing numbers, or statements by some official person or institution, that's imho a no-brainer. Particularly as a Google search can yield wildly different results based on location, search history, and wording of the search request. So assuming everybody else can "Just Google it", is often not very useful. > There’s also the risk that the request for a source just devolves into an argument about the quality of the source, which basically torpedos the discussion. You call it a risk, I call it an opportunity to fact-check if the original claim is actually true, or just one of the many headlines that take liberties for sensationalism. It's also an opportunity to establish a "base truth" that people can agree on as a premise, to start a discussion from. That's not a given when people from often vastly different educational, socio-economic, cultural and language backgrounds interact with each other, as it constantly happens online.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    A request for a source should include an argument for why a bit of information needs a source (what facts are in question, and how they impact the broader argument). A lazy “sources please!” should be treated as bad faith attempt to DDOS the other participant.
Philip-J-Fry 4y ago
Don't block, it's so cheap and is equally in bad faith. It means they can't see your comments, it means they can't reply to people who reply to your comments, it's the worst mechanism Reddit has ever implemented. Mute for sure, but blocking is just petty.
- johnnyanmac 4y ago
  Block used to be a mute. You "block someone" you no longer see them nor get pinged by them. But they can still reply to you and I believe you can still respond to them if you go out of your way to find the comment. This was how it was until ~2 years ago. Then it turned into some intermediate step where you opted out of interacting with them at all but you can still see the comment chain by default. The blocked user was simply collapsed, but you can expand it and see everything. i.e. it ruined the point of a "mute". Then almost a year ago it became what you describe. You still see collapsed blocked users, and you still can't respond, but the user can no longer respond to you nor any child in your chain. I hate it and simply want a "mute". I don't care if someone wants to yell at a wall. The announcement seemed poorly revceived by comments, but they still kept it around to this day.
the_af 4y ago
> If there's a back and forth and I feel like the person replying is not commenting in good faith then I'll just block them. I do this regularly on Reddit, it's the only way to stay sane. But get this: I had one person get so enraged they logged in with a second account just to reply to me saying I was dumb for blocking them, then they blocked me! I guess some people really need the last word.

millzlane 4y ago

I just say "oh okay".

TheCleric 4y ago
oh okay

Consultant32452 4y ago

My favorite trope on Reddit is when you explain something clearly and people respond that you haven't given an example or explained or whatever. It's not that you haven't explained, they just don't accept your explanation and demand more. I've taken to increasingly absurd responses to this trope. I often explain with perverse metaphors involving their mothers. Highly recommend finding your own flavor of fun responses to this ludicrous bad faith response.

wlesieutre 4y ago
And an obsession with sources. Which makes sense sometimes, but you can tell someone your favorite color is orange and they're not happy unless there's a Reuters article about what color you like.
- mcronce 4y ago
  Write a Medium article about your color preferences and link it. You might even make a few cents!
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  Reddit has a massive hard-on for external authority in any conceivable context so it shouldn't be surprising that they want a citation if you say the sky is blue.
- freeflight 4y ago
  I see nothing wrong with an "obsession" with sources. The www was very much built on sharing http links as a form of citation, no reason not to make use of such an fundamental and established function. Imho the opposite has become a much worse issue; People casually claiming the most extraordinary things, far outside the realm of opinions, with not even an attempt to source it.
  - johnnyanmac 4y ago
    It makes sense on Wikipedia. But meanwhile, Reddit seems powered by anecdotes but will ask for a source when you bring opposition. Motte and Bailey.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    A bad-faith request for a source is just an attempt to waste the other person’s time. If a source is requested, it should be obvious or explained where the source fits into the over-arching argument, it might require just as much work on the asker’s side, to establish why it is necessary. There’s also the risk that the request for a source just devolves into an argument about the quality of the source, which basically torpedos the discussion.
    - freeflight 4y ago
      > A bad-faith request for a source is just an attempt to waste the other person’s time. Why not add a source to begin with, so others don't have to "waste" their time asking for one/looking one up? With anything that's citing numbers, or statements by some official person or institution, that's imho a no-brainer. Particularly as a Google search can yield wildly different results based on location, search history, and wording of the search request. So assuming everybody else can "Just Google it", is often not very useful. > There’s also the risk that the request for a source just devolves into an argument about the quality of the source, which basically torpedos the discussion. You call it a risk, I call it an opportunity to fact-check if the original claim is actually true, or just one of the many headlines that take liberties for sensationalism. It's also an opportunity to establish a "base truth" that people can agree on as a premise, to start a discussion from. That's not a given when people from often vastly different educational, socio-economic, cultural and language backgrounds interact with each other, as it constantly happens online.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  A request for a source should include an argument for why a bit of information needs a source (what facts are in question, and how they impact the broader argument). A lazy “sources please!” should be treated as bad faith attempt to DDOS the other participant.

Philip-J-Fry 4y ago

Don't block, it's so cheap and is equally in bad faith. It means they can't see your comments, it means they can't reply to people who reply to your comments, it's the worst mechanism Reddit has ever implemented. Mute for sure, but blocking is just petty.

johnnyanmac 4y ago
Block used to be a mute. You "block someone" you no longer see them nor get pinged by them. But they can still reply to you and I believe you can still respond to them if you go out of your way to find the comment. This was how it was until ~2 years ago. Then it turned into some intermediate step where you opted out of interacting with them at all but you can still see the comment chain by default. The blocked user was simply collapsed, but you can expand it and see everything. i.e. it ruined the point of a "mute". Then almost a year ago it became what you describe. You still see collapsed blocked users, and you still can't respond, but the user can no longer respond to you nor any child in your chain. I hate it and simply want a "mute". I don't care if someone wants to yell at a wall. The announcement seemed poorly revceived by comments, but they still kept it around to this day.

the_af 4y ago

> If there's a back and forth and I feel like the person replying is not commenting in good faith then I'll just block them. I do this regularly on Reddit, it's the only way to stay sane. But get this: I had one person get so enraged they logged in with a second account just to reply to me saying I was dumb for blocking them, then they blocked me! I guess some people really need the last word.