Moderation on The New York Times

Even though this has become the status quo, and even though I have absolutely zero desire to post anything within the fascist echo chamber over at The New York Times sub-section, I find myself wondering if we really need to tolerate this specific brand of rhetoric:

I certainly recognize that this particular style of communication fits perfectly with the worldview held by the moderators and the regular users over there, but surely it’s common sense that blatant trolling and outright insults should be scrubbed from the platform? Personally, I’m not exactly a fan of Joan Didion and I disagree with her on just about everything, yet it would never even cross my mind to spout such mindless nonsense. Every single time I happen to wander into that section, you simply can't escape that kind of vitriol; it’s as if using some crude, hateful slur is the absolute pinnacle of civilization for the moderators and the community they’ve cultivated there—which explains why most people with half a brain stay far away from that corner of the site. 🤷

ironmarlin1 said:Even if this is the status quo, and even though I have no desire to post on the fascist sub-forums of The New York Times, is this kind of rhetoric really something we should tolerate:

I get that this style fits the worldview of the moderators and the regulars over there, but shouldn't trolling and insults be removed? It’s only normal. Personally, I'm not a fan of Joan Didion and we disagree on plenty, but I’d never dream of posting such nonsense. Every time I wander into that section, you can't avoid this kind of talk. It's as if using extreme, hateful slurs is the peak of civilization for the mods and the users they cultivate. It's why anyone with half a brain stays away from that part of the site.🤷

What's the issue???

You reported the post and it was handled properly—unless you think the moderators have nothing better to do than haunt Reddit just waiting for someone to post so they can pounce.

And thanks so much for your lovely opinion regarding the moderation team at The New York Times and the people who post there. It’s incredibly polite, but it says more about you than it does about us.

Given that attitude, you probably shouldn't have even received a response, but here we are.

Alright, maybe I went a bit overboard there, but let’s be honest: no one with a shred of sanity can engage in a civil conversation alongside those types—those self-styled heroes clinging to their nineties glory days. You don't even need to look far; just glance at the polls on that specific subreddit during a presidential election cycle, and you'll get a very clear, very disturbing picture of the demographic we're dealing with. That post above? It’s really just a vivid illustration of the kind of sludge they're peddling.

And I truly appreciate your thoughts regarding the moderation team over at The New York Times, as well as the users posting there; it’s incredibly polite of you, though frankly, it says much more about your own character than it does about ours.

My take is backed up by the data from the polls on that subreddit. We are talking about relics from the nineties barbarians who have somehow found a platform for their venom on the digital pages of The New York Times. It’s the only way they could ever find a foothold—with the blessing of the moderators. Cheers!👍

ironmarlin1 said:Even if this is just how things work now, and even though I don't really feel like posting on some far-right sub-section of The New York Times, is it actually okay to tolerate this kind of language:

I get that this style of talking fits right in with the mindset of the mods and the regulars over there, but shouldn't trolling and insults be wiped out? It’s pretty basic. Personally, I’m not a fan of Joan Didion and we disagree on plenty of things, but I’d never think to post nonsense like that. Every time I drift into that section, you can't escape that kind of vitriol. It’s like using extreme political slurs is the peak of civilization for those mods and the crowd they curate (which is why most people with any sense stay far away from that thread). 🤷

You used to get banned yourself ☕. Since you're clearly such a genius for deciding to write at all, do us all a favor—be even smarter and stop reading altogether. It’s obvious it’s taking a toll on you since you've started attacking other users and moderators. The folks over at The New York Times already know the deal, so they steer clear of posts like yours... which honestly just proves how much more intelligent they are than certain others...

Daniel Ward87

No, I wasn't the one getting banned; you must be thinking of some other user on here. 🤷

As for this whole business about reading up on things—well, I suppose people do it just so they can keep spewing that same old garbage about "war criminals" over there. Honestly, by all means, carry on and enjoy wallowing in that kind of rhetoric.

The folks over at The New York Times certainly know the drill, which is why they tend to mimic those kinds of posts... though that really just says everything you need to know about their intellect compared to others...

Mimic what kind of posts? 🤣
Mine? LOL, I don't even post there. But then again, you have a point; I can see people imitating my (very rare) comments and gravitating toward that nonsense about "war criminals." Back in the day, you’d find that stuff alongside antisemitic rants on every digital corner. Actually, they probably still exist, but I don't browse nearly as much these days, so I don't notice it quite as often.