Source
r/metanarchism•
flaxrabbit

[Proposal] - Warn /u/Min_thamee for repeatedly giving reactionaries a platform

I'm trying to do this in such a way to keep drama at a minimum and be as transparent as possible. I have made a number of attempts to work with Min_thamee, and he has not listened. So, I now am asking for support in warning Min_thamee, and if the behavior outlined below continues a ban.

In the last few days we have had reactionaries attempting to use r/Anarchism as a platform for their arguments. These reactionaries were not regular users of r/@, and they were not simply confused or ignorant about social justice issues. They were clearly here in an attempt to spread their message and/or to derail the voices of r/@ users.

In response to these reactionaries the mods took unilateral action to prevent them from using r/@ as a platform. Then, there were accountability threads posted in meta to point out what was happening.

The response from Min_thamee has been to take the reactionaries message and repost it unilaterally. Thus, giving the reactionaries back their platform. I believe accountability works both ways. Min_thamee's effort to hold mods accountable is directly enabling reactionaries by giving them a megaphone, and using his seniority as a member of r/@ as a shield for sock puppet accounts to hide behind.

Here are two recent examples:

So, I propose we give Min_thamee a final warning, and if he enables reactionaries by reposting their talking points (in effect giving the reactionaries the platform they wanted) we follow through with a ban.

I'm sorry it had to come to this. I just don't see a way forward where the mod team can effectively shut down reactionaries while Min_thamee does this.

Posted Mar 12, 2015, 3:57 PM UTC · edited

625
stirner_was_a_cat•

Support.

7
-Enkara-POOR IMPULSE CONTROL•

Support ban

He's already been warned repeatedly, even got banned once.

(For clarity, I'd also support a warning)

7
Vindalfr•

This would be his 4th if my count is correct. Met@ today is far more "legitimate" than it has in the past, but this little shit has been nothing if not consistent.

9
[deleted]•

Support ban. They should have remained banned after posting that white genocide propaganda.

7
boilerpunx•

He's been warned enough, support ban. He never met conditions for reversing his last ban months ago. Letting him back in was a unilateral mod action, but he won't complain about that one.

7
needstrangersadvice•

Support for ban.

6
[deleted]•

[deleted]

6
Vindalfr•

Support.

Edit: I ultimately support banning the user as proposed in the following thread.

https://www.reddit.com/r/metanarchism/comments/2yv286/proposal_ban_umin_thamee/

Here's relevant met@ submission history from their previous two accounts"

http://www.reddit.com/r/metanarchism/search?q=alookyaw&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all

http://www.reddit.com/r/metanarchism/search?q=Min-dami&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all

Here's relevant r/@ history on their previous two accounts.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/search?q=Min-dami&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all

http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/search?q=alookyaw&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all

Don't forget to sort those results by "new" so you're not looking at their shit out of order. Looking at it chronologically makes it clear to me that this user sucks.

5
lilit_•

nah, ban his ass

5
Cosmic_Insurrection•

Highly support. Would support a ban instead though.

5
The_Mermaid•

I would support a ban, not just a warning. He's been given enough warnings.

5
Min_thamee•

You reached out to dialogue with.me in another thread, and I took the time to respond, (actually alter my opinion based on your dialogue) and write back to you, with hopes if dialogue in the future. I was genuinely trying to build a bridge and thus is your response? I mean thar kinda hurts, especially as I thought we were getting somewhere.

How is asking about men's issues reactionary anyway? It's one of the negative effects of patriarchy.

3
flaxrabbitOP•

I reached out, and told you that giving reactionaries a platform was fucked up. I asked you to hold mods accountable in ways other than posing the question "maybe the reactionary is correct?". Then 24 hours later you did the same thing.

Honestly, I would have banned most other people a long time ago for the same thing. I didn't ban you outright, because I hate drama and I want to avoid it as much as possible.

7
Min_thamee•

Hold on though, where did I give a reactionary a platform in the last 24 hours. Someone made a ban thread on a user and I disagreed that they were a reactionary. I mean surely I have at least the opportunity here to do that?

I didn't make a platform for reactionary views, In fact I made a thread asking for alternative subreddits to r/mensrights, that approach men's issues from a non anti feminist stance. I don't see how that is giving a platform to a reactionary?

1
flaxrabbitOP•

Someone made a ban thread on a user and I disagreed that they were a reactionary. I mean surely I have at least the opportunity here to do that?

In the meta thread you did that. That is fine, and not at all what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the thread you made in r/@.

I didn't make a platform for reactionary views, In fact I made a thread asking for alternative subreddits to r/mensrights

Your whole statement is about flossdaily's MRA talking points. A mod felt that they didn't belong here enough to remove them. Instead of working within any accountability process we have to voice your disagreement you started that thread, and effectively gave those talking points a platform that the mod team had tried to remove from r/@.

6
Min_thamee•

Wait what was the MRA talking point? Or is it that I talked about a banned user in main? Now I'm confused.

Ok, please let me know, If I didn't mention the user who was banned, would it be ok?

0
JacobStirner•

Oh please. It's disingenuous posters like you, that contribute to me not wanting to participate in r/anarchism, despite being an anarchist for most of my adult life and agreeing wholeheartedly with it's ideals.

Men's issues are horseshit masquerading as somehow legitimate talking points in gender discussion. All of these "issues" are a result of something else, be it classism, racism ,ableism, cissexism, or heterosexism. More often than not, I am not actively oppressed for having a penis, I am oppressed for being schizoaffective, queer, part of the underclass, and agendered. I'm percieved as man, despite the reality that I'm trans*.

Yes, patriarchy hurts men, but it's because it hurts feminine and non-binary behavior. Don't fall for the bullshit of "men's issues" or "men's rights". But, if I know you well enough, you're going to feed me some line that boils down to what about teh menz?

5
zolfe•

What exactly is wrong with the second link?

1
Vindalfr•

Their action was to give platform to u/flossdaily to whose apparent agenda is to legitimize MRA talking points by trolling feminist spaces.

In addition to being an MRA, he's also a lawyer. Here's their ban thread. u/The_Mermaid covered the reason for banning.

https://www.reddit.com/r/metanarchism/comments/2yqlfw/ban_uflossdaily/

6
[deleted]•

[deleted]

0
The_Mermaid•

As for u/The_Mermaid, his (or her) case against me was nothing but outright lies.

Her. And I didn't exactly form a case against you, I just posted a few links explaining why you were banned. Posting a link to a comment of yours isn't "lying."

5
zolfe•

I don't see Min's post as much of a platform for floss. Floss seemed to be used as more of a jumping off point for a discussion on men's issues. It's a valid discussion that should, and needs to, be had imo.

I can't, and won't, comment on flossdaily or their supposed agenda.

That said, I'm not an anarchist so I'm not going to vote either way.

-2
needstrangersadvice•

So, the deal is that a focus on "mens issues" is almost always a front for MRA-type misogyny. Are there social issues wherein male-bodied people are disproportionately affected in negative ways? Sure. Does that mean that those issues are somehow different than the issues that disproportionately affect female-bodied people negatively? NO. Feminism is as much about destroying unreasonable images of masculinity as it is destroying unreasonable images of femininity. If men want to see the barriers to social equality be overthrown, they can embrace feminism instead of trying to yet again make the focus be on themselves.

7
flaxrabbitOPMOD🐰•

With 10 support and 2 oppose this passes.

I have decided to count those calling for a ban instead of a warn as supports. I can see how some might not agree with counting those votes. If you want, consider this a unilateral action. The number of supports for a ban here and in the ban thread along with those that opposed the ban, but said a warning would be good is enough momentum for a warning.

So, u/Min_thamee you are officially warned. Do not continue to enable reactionaries by reposting their talking points. If you continue to do so you will be banned.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
burtzev•

Oppose.

-2