Ministry of Truth

I took a page out of Orwell’s 1984 because the way two moderators handled the politics section
really brought that novel to mind.

Right now on the site, there are two threads regarding abortion. On one they're debating the procedure itself, and on the other it's about a doctor's right to conscientious objection.

Naturally, just like in real life, the users split into pro-life and pro-choice camps. Surprisingly, the debate has been civil—intense at times, sure, but not toxic. Honestly, for a topic this heavy, it should be a model for discussion.

Then, out of nowhere, two moderators, Bubimír and Doris Gray, decided to start handing out bans to anyone claiming abortion is the killing of a fetus. Apparently, that's the official moderator stance now.

I’m disappointed, and I strongly disagree with this move. Here is why.

The word "kill" is a standard American English term used to describe ending the life of any living thing.
If a hunter shoots a wild boar, we say he killed it.
If someone steps on a spider, we say they killed it.
It isn't weird to say someone killed a tree.
In a poetic sense, you can even say someone killed an idea.

The point is, using the word "kill" doesn't automatically imply a criminal act or a legal judgment.

In the abortion debate, the pro-life side provided several links to scientific literature,
mainly embryology textbooks that clearly state a human being begins at conception.
That doesn't mean we're pre-judging whether it's a "person" or discussing its moral status—that's the whole point of the debate.

When we say abortion is the killing of a fetus, we are simply using a common American term for ending a life. If moderators use their power to ban specific vocabulary, we have a problem. Reddit should be a platform that, thanks to user anonymity and the ability to host controversial topics,
contributes to free speech and a healthy media landscape in America.

I agree that hate speech and ad hominem attacks should be stopped, but policing the actual substance of a debate feels less like moderating and more like something straight out of the Ministry of Truth.

I’m asking those in charge of these moderators to reconsider. This kind of gatekeeping goes against everything Reddit is supposed to be.

Had the debate remained spirited yet civil, there would have been no need for intervention.

But let’s go back to basics.
A significant portion of a moderator's duty on this forum involves establishing a framework that allows for arguments to be heated yet respectful. When we succeed in that, the discussions are exceptional; when we fail, threads quickly alienate most users and become magnets for nothing but radical trolls. If you follow our community guidelines, you know that based on our Politics subforum, we've seen this pattern play out repeatedly in various threads regarding the War in Ukraine. We are still grappling with the complexities of the War in Ukraine, as we all know, but fortunately, this hasn't happened in the abortion thread—it’s working fine for now.

Setting a framework means establishing a set of constraints within which a discussion must take place if it is to remain viable at all. On the Politics subforum, we concluded that this would include prohibiting diversions into talk of killings and murders, because such an approach dismantles any attempt to discuss a problem that is normative in nature and, by its very essence, incredibly complex. This certainly doesn't mean that certain terminology is banned simply because my colleague Bubi Mir and I hold opposing views. The best proof of this is that Bubi Mir is a moderator, while I serve as a supermoderator for the Religion subforum, where expressing a stance on abortion as a form of killing is considered an acceptable part of the discourse. However, on Religion, we don't operate under the assumption that a discussion must center on the normative basis of an issue; rather, it serves as a venue for clashing worldviews, and the discussions naturally follow that path.

So, to conclude, steering a discussion isn't about silencing one side; it is about facilitating a conversation in a direction that is more meaningful and necessary within the specific context of that subforum. For those interested in debating different worldviews, users are more than welcome to join the conversation over in Religion.

William Bennett53 said:Had the debate remained spirited yet civil, there would have been no need for intervention.

But let’s go back to basics.
A significant portion of a moderator's duty on this forum involves establishing a framework that allows for arguments to be heated yet respectful. When we succeed in that, the discussions are exceptional; when we fail, threads quickly alienate most users and become magnets for nothing but radical trolls. If you follow our community guidelines, you know that based on our Politics subforum, we've seen this pattern play out repeatedly in various threads regarding the War in Ukraine. We are still grappling with the complexities of the War in Ukraine, as we all know, but fortunately, this hasn't happened in the abortion thread—it’s working fine for now.

Setting a framework means establishing a set of constraints within which a discussion must take place if it is to remain viable at all. On the Politics subforum, we concluded that this would include prohibiting diversions into talk of killings and murders, because such an approach dismantles any attempt to discuss a problem that is normative in nature and, by its very essence, incredibly complex. This certainly doesn't mean that certain terminology is banned simply because my colleague Bubi Mir and I hold opposing views. The best proof of this is that Bubi Mir is a moderator, while I serve as a supermoderator for the Religion subforum, where expressing a stance on abortion as a form of killing is considered an acceptable part of the discourse. However, on Religion, we don't operate under the assumption that a discussion must center on the normative basis of an issue; rather, it serves as a venue for clashing worldviews, and the discussions naturally follow that path.

So, to conclude, steering a discussion isn't about silencing one side; it is about facilitating a conversation in a direction that is more meaningful and necessary within the specific context of that subforum. For those interested in debating different worldviews, users are more than welcome to join the conversation over in Religion.

Let’s call this fancy wording what it really is: censorship. ☕

This isn't the first time we've seen this play out on the platform. I can think of plenty of other examples, but one that sticks in my mind was during that massive wave of debate over protecting traditional marriage. Back then, any attempt to discuss homosexuality was treated like a total taboo. Even though there's a mountain of research linking certain topics, mentioning them alongside pedophilia became an instant death sentence in the discussion. But, in its infinite wisdom, the Forum decided it needed to "set the framework," which is just a polite way of saying they censored those perspectives and went after anyone who stepped out of line. One day you get a warning, the next you're banned—it feels like some heavy-handed moderator is just playing judge and jury.

It's also quite interesting how these "frameworks" always seem to be rigged so that the liberal, permissive side gets a free pass, while the conservative and traditional views get shut down immediately.

mistyseal8 said:Let’s call this fancy wording what it really is: censorship. ☕

This isn't the first time we've seen this play out on the platform. I can think of plenty of other examples, but one that sticks in my mind was during that massive wave of debate over protecting traditional marriage. Back then, any attempt to discuss homosexuality was treated like a total taboo. Even though there's a mountain of research linking certain topics, mentioning them alongside pedophilia became an instant death sentence in the discussion. But, in its infinite wisdom, the Forum decided it needed to "set the framework," which is just a polite way of saying they censored those perspectives and went after anyone who stepped out of line. One day you get a warning, the next you're banned—it feels like some heavy-handed moderator is just playing judge and jury.

It's also quite interesting how these "frameworks" always seem to be rigged so that the liberal, permissive side gets a free pass, while the conservative and traditional views get shut down immediately.

I guess it’s because most of the arguments trying to link the two basically boil down to "well, if this becomes legal, then pedophilia is next," at least according to the crowd over at Reddit. 🤦

Sophia Thomas7 said:I guess it’s because most of the arguments trying to link the two basically boil down to "well, if this becomes legal, then pedophilia is next," at least according to the crowd over at Reddit. 🤦

Honestly, I’m surprised the people drawing parallels to bestiality aren't getting yelled at too.

Look, guys, it isn't about being on the right or the left—it’s that some of you just can't seem to stay above a basement-level level of discourse. Labeling women who have abortions as murderers, or equating gay people with pedophiles or zoophiles, is just straight-up primal nonsense. It’s bottom-of-the-barrel behavior. That isn't a debate; it's just noise.

@popij pipi - Absolutely. Anyone who, when discussing homosexuality, starts rambling about pedophilia out of sheer insecurity—or whatever other neurosis they're dealing with—should be shut down. If you want to sit there and conclude that actual dialogue is impossible because, much like some dive bar in rural Nebraska, anyone can wander in with a half-baked, idiotic idea and derail the entire conversation, then fine. If you insist on labeling that "censorship," go ahead. But we are going to maintain a certain level of decorum.

William Bennett53 said:@popij pipi - Absolutely. Anyone who, when discussing homosexuality, starts rambling about pedophilia out of sheer insecurity—or whatever other neurosis they're dealing with—should be shut down. If you want to sit there and conclude that actual dialogue is impossible because, much like some dive bar in rural Nebraska, anyone can wander in with a half-baked, idiotic idea and derail the entire conversation, then fine. If you insist on labeling that "censorship," go ahead. But we are going to maintain a certain level of decorum.

It seems like neither you nor the other participants here have actually listened to what I've been saying. I’ve been focusing on hard facts, reliable sources, and actual research, not the imaginary fears or phobias you all keep trying to pin on me. No, 🙂 and 🙂 were just doing their jobs. Censorship. Banned. 🙂

An online forum should be a space where ideas can be exchanged freely within a well-structured environment. Unfortunately, that isn't the case here, because the rules seem to be shaped by ideology rather than logic.

William Bennett53 said:Had the debate remained spirited yet civil, there would have been no need for intervention.

But let’s go back to basics.
A significant portion of a moderator's duty on this forum involves establishing a framework that allows for arguments to be heated yet respectful. When we succeed in that, the discussions are exceptional; when we fail, threads quickly alienate most users and become magnets for nothing but radical trolls. If you follow our community guidelines, you know that based on our Politics subforum, we've seen this pattern play out repeatedly in various threads regarding the War in Ukraine. We are still grappling with the complexities of the War in Ukraine, as we all know, but fortunately, this hasn't happened in the abortion thread—it’s working fine for now.

Setting a framework means establishing a set of constraints within which a discussion must take place if it is to remain viable at all. On the Politics subforum, we concluded that this would include prohibiting diversions into talk of killings and murders, because such an approach dismantles any attempt to discuss a problem that is normative in nature and, by its very essence, incredibly complex. This certainly doesn't mean that certain terminology is banned simply because my colleague Bubi Mir and I hold opposing views. The best proof of this is that Bubi Mir is a moderator, while I serve as a supermoderator for the Religion subforum, where expressing a stance on abortion as a form of killing is considered an acceptable part of the discourse. However, on Religion, we don't operate under the assumption that a discussion must center on the normative basis of an issue; rather, it serves as a venue for clashing worldviews, and the discussions naturally follow that path.

So, to conclude, steering a discussion isn't about silencing one side; it is about facilitating a conversation in a direction that is more meaningful and necessary within the specific context of that subforum. For those interested in debating different worldviews, users are more than welcome to join the conversation over in Religion.

Thanks for the long reply, but I think it’s pretty biased.
I know you don't owe anyone an explanation for your calls, but since this affects a whole group of serious, long-time users, providing specific arguments would be the fair thing to do.

At the end of the day, here are my actual points:

1. That term is standard American English used to describe ending a living being's life. By banning the phrase "killing a fetus," you aren't just policing form; you're interfering with the substance of the debate.
By doing this, you're effectively using moderator power to decide that a fetus isn't a living being, which is the core argument of the pro-life side—an argument supported by the links I already provided.

2. The term "killing a fetus" is used all the time in the public square here in the US and everywhere else I know. Pro-life groups even use petitions demanding an end to the killing of fetuses.

3. The pro-life movement is primarily a political movement, not a religious one. I don't see why religious discourse is allowed on the Religion subforum while the discourse of a political movement is banned on Politics.

Sure, I could find other terms or talk about "terminating life," but it bugs me that you're using moderator authority to tilt the entire debate. When I use the phrase "killing a fetus," I'm not attacking anyone personally, using ad hominems, or labeling people.

William Bennett53 said:@popij pipi - Absolutely. Anyone who, when discussing homosexuality, starts rambling about pedophilia out of sheer insecurity—or whatever other neurosis they're dealing with—should be shut down. If you want to sit there and conclude that actual dialogue is impossible because, much like some dive bar in rural Nebraska, anyone can wander in with a half-baked, idiotic idea and derail the entire conversation, then fine. If you insist on labeling that "censorship," go ahead. But we are going to maintain a certain level of decorum.

We’re talking about Boldan here.
As a moderator, you're supposed to treat everyone equally.

If you start off throwing clichés about "personal fears" at people, you've already lost any shot at being neutral. You won't be able to tell the difference between a bad idea and a logical, well-argued point—even if it goes against your own views or the status quo.

I see this same pattern on every heavy topic here, and frankly, I'm getting tired of it.
Usually, I just walk away, but for a platform with this kind of reach, it's a waste. This style of moderation just drives away high-level, intelligent contributors (not just you, but the politics mods and others too).

Real, objective moderation takes time, actual knowledge, and guts.
It feels like very few moderators actually have what it takes.

boldwalker12 said:Honestly, I’m surprised the people drawing parallels to bestiality aren't getting yelled at too.

Look, guys, it isn't about being on the right or the left—it’s that some of you just can't seem to stay above a basement-level level of discourse. Labeling women who have abortions as murderers, or equating gay people with pedophiles or zoophiles, is just straight-up primal nonsense. It’s bottom-of-the-barrel behavior. That isn't a debate; it's just noise.

1. The pro-life side argues a fetus is a living being.
2. I’ve provided links to American embryology textbooks stating human life begins at conception (that's the scientific consensus).
3. In American English, ending a living being's life is called "killing."

Stop trying to treat us like idiots. 🤷

Jessica Kelly4 said:Thanks for the long reply, but I think it’s pretty biased.
I know you don't owe anyone an explanation for your calls, but since this affects a whole group of serious, long-time users, providing specific arguments would be the fair thing to do.

At the end of the day, here are my actual points:

1. That term is standard American English used to describe ending a living being's life. By banning the phrase "killing a fetus," you aren't just policing form; you're interfering with the substance of the debate.
By doing this, you're effectively using moderator power to decide that a fetus isn't a living being, which is the core argument of the pro-life side—an argument supported by the links I already provided.

2. The term "killing a fetus" is used all the time in the public square here in the US and everywhere else I know. Pro-life groups even use petitions demanding an end to the killing of fetuses.

3. The pro-life movement is primarily a political movement, not a religious one. I don't see why religious discourse is allowed on the Religion subforum while the discourse of a political movement is banned on Politics.

Sure, I could find other terms or talk about "terminating life," but it bugs me that you're using moderator authority to tilt the entire debate. When I use the phrase "killing a fetus," I'm not attacking anyone personally, using ad hominems, or labeling people.

Oh, you totally are labeling. You’re labeling the women reading this who might actually feel like killers because you're suggesting they killed a child. Honestly, I shouldn't even have to explain the difference between infanticide and abortion to you, since the law makes that distinction perfectly clear. So, why are you trying to sidestep the legal definition just to slap the label of "infanticide" on women? And why on earth do you think this forum should be used as a platform to shame people and dump all that guilt and horror onto them?

Cut the act and stop trying to justify yourself by saying you aren't calling anyone a killer. If someone "kills," then they are a "killer." It’s pretty basic logic, and I know you're more than capable of grasping it.

Jessica Kelly4 said:1. The pro-life side argues a fetus is a living being.
2. I’ve provided links to American embryology textbooks stating human life begins at conception (that's the scientific consensus).
3. In American English, ending a living being's life is called "killing."

Stop trying to treat us like idiots. 🤷

Just give it up; it's a lost cause.

I was once slapped with a ban and labeled a troll myself😉 just because I argued that abortion is murder.
I don't recall which moderator it was, but she told me quite politely that we couldn't refer to women who have abortions as murderers as long as the law doesn't recognize it that way.
And under current US law, abortion isn't classified as murder.

That's the vibe, if you catch my drift.

So, you're essentially fighting a losing battle. I suspect that user might have been a bot.👍

boldwalker12 said:Oh, you totally are labeling. You’re labeling the women reading this who might actually feel like killers because you're suggesting they killed a child. Honestly, I shouldn't even have to explain the difference between infanticide and abortion to you, since the law makes that distinction perfectly clear. So, why are you trying to sidestep the legal definition just to slap the label of "infanticide" on women? And why on earth do you think this forum should be used as a platform to shame people and dump all that guilt and horror onto them?

Cut the act and stop trying to justify yourself by saying you aren't calling anyone a killer. If someone "kills," then they are a "killer." It’s pretty basic logic, and I know you're more than capable of grasping it.

You’re making the same mistake the moderators do—you automatically reduce "killing" to a legal definition.
I'm not claiming it's a criminal act of killing a child (infanticide). I'm saying it is the act of ending the life of a living human being we call a fetus, which isn't subject to legal penalties.

I used the example of "killing a spider," which is perfectly normal American English, and you can't tell me that's a crime.

The fact that a fetus is a living being is something the pro-life side can back up with links to specific scientific sources; that's the core argument of that political movement. Whether that living being carries enough moral weight to deserve protection is the actual debate where pro-life and pro-choice sides clash.

Anthony Perez28 said:Just give it up; it's a lost cause.

I was once slapped with a ban and labeled a troll myself😉 just because I argued that abortion is murder.
I don't recall which moderator it was, but she told me quite politely that we couldn't refer to women who have abortions as murderers as long as the law doesn't recognize it that way.
And under current US law, abortion isn't classified as murder.

That's the vibe, if you catch my drift.

So, you're essentially fighting a losing battle. I suspect that user might have been a bot.👍

If there's no point, I might as well just walk away from this American forum, just like plenty of others have done over the last decade I've spent hanging around here.🤷

boldwalker12 said:Oh, you totally are labeling. You’re labeling the women reading this who might actually feel like killers because you're suggesting they killed a child. Honestly, I shouldn't even have to explain the difference between infanticide and abortion to you, since the law makes that distinction perfectly clear. So, why are you trying to sidestep the legal definition just to slap the label of "infanticide" on women? And why on earth do you think this forum should be used as a platform to shame people and dump all that guilt and horror onto them?

Cut the act and stop trying to justify yourself by saying you aren't calling anyone a killer. If someone "kills," then they are a "killer." It’s pretty basic logic, and I know you're more than capable of grasping it.

Where exactly did he label anyone in a way that would make someone feel like a "murderer"? Can someone please provide a specific example? 🙂

It seems like you might be overstating things here. Are you perhaps projecting, or are you actually claiming that... You know. Or perhaps you can sense how someone feels just by reading their words.

Enough said. Looking at that PDF discussion, the style used in Politics is often quite aggressive—it feels like you're constantly trying to force your opinion on everyone else. On the other hand, Jessica Kelly4 seems to be the exact opposite; anyone who has followed her on this sub for any length of time knows she isn't about imposing her views on anyone, regardless of the topic.

Look, regarding those "sensitive topics," the article articulates a perfectly legitimate and widely accepted viewpoint. It isn't aggressive or pushy, which makes the argument quite compelling. Someone is going to end up feeling one way or another because of what that forum user writes. He certainly has the right to write it, but if we’re being honest, the whole thing sounds like something straight out of a science fiction novel.

Who else feels this way? Did someone personally complain to you about how this topic is being handled, or what?

Shifting the responsibility for someone else's "feelings" onto the person who simply points out that terminating a pregnancy is viewed by some as "fetal murder" feels like a bit of a manipulative stretch. It seems like a twisted kind of psychology to me.

The point is that if someone expresses a legitimate, widely accepted viewpoint, they should have the right to do so. Furthermore, provided that the position is shared in a non-aggressive manner without insulting others, it should be perfectly acceptable.

If someone takes issue with that particular attitude, then whose problem is it exactly? You're the one taking it to such extremes by claiming that’s what it is. Is it really necessary to force this blame onto women? And honestly, that doesn't even strike me as a rational or objective perspective.

Some fictional women in America have undergone abortions, and now "no one is allowed to say anything except praise for abortion." Wouldn't that just inflict additional "traumas" on a hypothetical reader? Is this your theory, or is this how you propose we move forward?

In my view, she might have missed the point entirely. This is supposed to be a forum for public debate, isn't it? Nothing more, nothing less. 😉

I'm currently waiting on some guests, so I won't be able to jump into a conversation right now. 😵
However, let me be clear: we aren't going to be debating abortion issues here; our focus remains strictly on moderation.

boldwalker12 said:Oh, you totally are labeling. You’re labeling the women reading this who might actually feel like killers because you're suggesting they killed a child. Honestly, I shouldn't even have to explain the difference between infanticide and abortion to you, since the law makes that distinction perfectly clear. So, why are you trying to sidestep the legal definition just to slap the label of "infanticide" on women? And why on earth do you think this forum should be used as a platform to shame people and dump all that guilt and horror onto them?

Cut the act and stop trying to justify yourself by saying you aren't calling anyone a killer. If someone "kills," then they are a "killer." It’s pretty basic logic, and I know you're more than capable of grasping it.

To make a long story short—you are personally suggesting that the moderators and supermods of the Politics section, which you don't even moderate despite being active in discussions regarding pregnancy termination, should ban or otherwise regulate the use of the legitimate term 'fetal murder.' You claim this terminology might "hurt" someone emotionally, even though we aren't talking about born babies, but rather fetuses.

🤦
>

And honestly, that generalization—'it will hurt women'—isn't even true. I am a woman, and I have absolutely no problem with the term fetal murder; it doesn't offend or hurt me in any way.

Susan Price30 said:To make a long story short—you are personally suggesting that the moderators and supermods of the Politics section, which you don't even moderate despite being active in discussions regarding pregnancy termination, should ban or otherwise regulate the use of the legitimate term 'fetal murder.' You claim this terminology might "hurt" someone emotionally, even though we aren't talking about born babies, but rather fetuses.

🤦
>

And honestly, that generalization—'it will hurt women'—isn't even true. I am a woman, and I have absolutely no problem with the term fetal murder; it doesn't offend or hurt me in any way.

Look, I’m just sharing my take as a regular user who happened to be part of that discussion, not as some moderator.

And honestly, sorry, but I'm not going to go back and forth with you; I already know how irrational you get.
I've said my piece. Calling people murderers is still calling them murderers, no matter how much fancy packaging you wrap it in. And hey, even Željko Markić keeps it civil. 🙂
Anyway, I'm stepping out of this because I really don't want to clog up the thread.

boldwalker12 said:Look, I’m just sharing my take as a regular user who happened to be part of that discussion, not as some moderator.

And honestly, sorry, but I'm not going to go back and forth with you; I already know how irrational you get.
I've said my piece. Calling people murderers is still calling them murderers, no matter how much fancy packaging you wrap it in. And hey, even Željko Markić keeps it civil. 🙂
Anyway, I'm stepping out of this because I really don't want to clog up the thread.

Oh, I almost forgot—it seems you two "self-proclaimed anti-church" types have come up with a specific label for people of the Catholic faith.

It might be interesting to hear what the forum owner thinks about this particular "term."🙂

Best regards,

Susan Price30 said:Oh, I almost forgot—it seems you two "self-proclaimed anti-church" types have come up with a specific label for people of the Catholic faith.

It might be interesting to hear what the forum owner thinks about this particular "term."🙂

Best regards,

Don't try to twist my words. When I say "yours," I'm not talking about believers in general; I'm talking strictly about you and those posts of yours that have popped up on my radar a few times now.