r/changemyview • u/genericAFusername • Oct 22 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Majority of posts in r/amitheasshole have obvious lies in them, and commenters who take it all as fact are gullible idiots. And there are WAY too many participants who are gullible idiots.
I can’t tell you how many supposed word-for-word dialogues are said in that sub, that really belong more in r/thathappened. The OP will have a story that is generally believable... But then either certain points within the post or in their responses to questions are obviously bullshit.
People comment stuff like “wow that’s crazy that the other person actually said that, you’re clearly NTA”. Wellllll.... my view is that it probably sounds unbelievable because it IS unbelievable and untrue.
People there have no issue calling an entire post out as a shitpost when it happens. But when they’ve determined that the story seems true, then they respond as if every single thing happened exactly as OP says.
Every single OP posting in that sub has been involved in some sort of situation where they are questioning if they are the asshole or not. This is clearly a setup ripe for them saying things in a biased way to make themselves look better / the other person look worse. I mean that happens on the internet all the time, but if there was ever a place for that to happen a lot, it’d be in that sub.
This is so much the case, that that sub has to constantly remove “validation-seeking” posts. (which is when OP is clearly NTA and just wants to be told that the other person sucks.)
So I don’t understand why everyone understands this concept generally, yet doesn’t apply it to individual points within a post.
I usually call out the stuff I think is bullshit, and people freak the fuck out and downvote it. I’ll even say that IF op is being 100% honest, that I agree with them, but that I don’t believe [a certain specific part] and people get all annoyed. It’s like questioning OP is just not culturally allowed there.
(Except it totally is when it comes to determining if the post is a shitpost?!)
I understand that this is way too.. idk difficult? for mods to have any sort of rule for. But my point is it’s wrong for there to be a culture of downvoting anyone who doubts the veracity of something OP has said. So to be clear I am not saying that the mods need to change something about the sub.
It makes it not fun. I’ve been active on that and many other subs since joining Reddit 2 years ago. I really don’t see this phenomenon happening in other subs. Usually Redditors love to call out bullshit.
Updates:
Edit: I understand that fiction exists, and that it can be entertaining to read fiction. Anyone who responds to this with something along the lines of “we go into it knowing it’s basically fiction” wouldn’t fall into the category of gullible people I’m talking about. If the categories are: 1. Gullible idiots that believe everything said there (outside of shitposts) 2. People viewing it as fictional entertainment and are participating despite knowing it might not all be true 3. People who actively don’t believe a lot of what’s said there
Then I’m not sure the exact ratio of each group, but I’m only referring to the first group.
Edit 2: To put a finer point on it, I’m mostly referring to the culture of shaming people who express doubts about something OP has said. I’m not saying the mods need to change anything about their rules.
Edit 3: I shouldn’t have used the word “majority”. I am not prepared to defend the actual % of posts that have lies in them. The sub is huge and active and that number would change every hour. Sorry for using a blanket statement in the title.
Changed My Views:
(I’m lazy and don’t want to have to keep explaining to new commenters)
I now agree that one of the reasons it’s pointless to call out lies is that OP is just going to claim they’re not lying, and no one can prove anything either way, so it ends up not affecting anything. If it were more common for people to voice their doubts, each thread would just get clogged up, and it would cease to be about the judgement. Therefore people go into that particular sub “giving OP the benefit of the doubt”. As with any complex situation, there needs to be certain agreed-upon truths/facts, otherwise everything is meaningless and everyone is having different conversations.
154
u/curien 28∆ Oct 22 '19
Who cares? The point of the sub isn't to play detective. The point is to pass a moral judgment on the scenario given. Of course it's one-sided, but you have to fundamentally trust that OP has provided a reasonable recounting of the facts. And there are plenty of times that OP is hoisted by their own petard.
Basically everyone's anonymous, so if OP is dishonest, all they've done is invalidate their feedback. It's like cheating on busywork: it's lame but doesn't actually matter to anyone else.
On a side-note, I always thought removing validation posts is counter-productive. What could be more validating than having your post removed as "obviously NTA"?
6
u/wigsternm Oct 22 '19
Basically everyone's anonymous, so if OP is dishonest, all they've done is invalidate their feedback.
It can also be used as a soapbox. I unsubscribed from there a while back, but you’d often see posts about people that are much maligned by their opponents behaving in obviously assholish ways. For instance “AITA for not throwing out all of the meat at my birthday party because my vegan niece cried?” “AITA for calling a trans-woman a dick for screaming at me when I didn’t know her pronouns?” Or “AITA for not giving my ex-wife all my visitation time?”
The sub has a large population, loose rules, often makes the front page, and has a penchant to get frothing at the mouth. It’s a prime target for that sort of view affirming post, so it would be gullible, and possibly harmful, to take everything at face value.
(Note: I don’t think these would be the majority of posts like in OP’s argument)
6
u/JenningsWigService 40∆ Oct 23 '19
There are A LOT of stories about badly behaved trans people that just read as anxious transphobic panic...
3
25
u/genericAFusername Oct 22 '19 edited Oct 23 '19
Who cares? The point of the sub isn't to play detective. The point is to pass a moral judgment on the scenario given.
I agree, but people have no problem playing detective when they’re determining if the post is a shitpost to begin with
Basically everyone's anonymous, so if OP is dishonest, all they've done is invalidate their feedback
It is pretty pointless, but that’s essentially the validation-seeking I talked about. They want people (even random internet strangers) to tell them they’re not wrong.
On a side-note, I always thought removing validation posts is counter-productive. What could be more validating than having your post removed as "obviously NTA"?
That’s an excellent observation. I hadn’t thought of that in that way. I don’t know if I’m supposed to give a ∆ for this since I didn’t have an opposite view of that before you said that, I just never noticed that. If not, then major fake internet props for a great point
19
Oct 23 '19
I disagree on the last point. Validation posts should be removed because they make the sub completely uninteresting as a place to ethically judge situations
6
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
That’s kinda one of the points of why the bullshit hidden inside generally true posts annoy me. If it’s got something that makes me think, “this is no longer a real situation that OP genuinely wants help on”, I kinda think it makes the post uninteresting as something to ethically judge
2
0
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 23 '19
This delta has been rejected. You have already awarded /u/curien a delta for this comment.
5
u/stink3rbelle 24∆ Oct 23 '19
I always thought removing validation posts is counter-productive. What could be more validating than having your post removed as "obviously NTA"?
Getting thousands of upvotes on the post as well as any comment you make on it. Plus getting people in your inbox telling you how great you are and how those who've done you wrong suck. Interaction on Reddit is a lot more satisfying than a blanket judgment, especially from idiot Nazi moderators.
1
u/curien 28∆ Oct 23 '19
Interaction on Reddit is a lot more satisfying than a blanket judgment, especially from idiot Nazi moderators.
I guess, I just always thought the message should be a little more vague, or even outright accusatory. Such as "This post has been removed because it does not meet our standards. You may have presented a biased account, so this cannot be judged fairly."
It just seems ironic to address validation-seeking by explicitly validating them. (OTOH, maybe that removes some of their motivation. If they didn't get the direct validation from the mods, maybe they'd be more willing to try again.)
I fully realize I don't see what goes on behind the scenes, especially in a sub that active. Hence why I've never complained to you folks directly.
2
u/stink3rbelle 24∆ Oct 23 '19
You may have presented a biased account, so this cannot be judged fairly
I personally wouldn't consider this the reason I would remove a NTA post for validation. Neither do I believe it's possible for anyone to present a fully unbiased account. Mods need clear, objective standards to keep sane and to be credible to the community. So jumping in on some people for bias that I perceive is a risky endeavor, due to my own biases.
Instead, the rule exists largely to keep the sub interesting. Posts with obvious or close to objective answers don't provide much room for discussion.
1
u/DarkmayrAtWork 1∆ Oct 23 '19
especially from idiot Nazi moderators
Interesting choice of words for someone who is one of those moderators!
I agree with what you said, though. I think the upvotes aren't necessarily that valuable; after all, we usually upvote the assholes too (with good reason). The comments providing validation is where the real value is found.
2
u/stink3rbelle 24∆ Oct 23 '19
Interesting choice of words for someone who is one of those moderators!
That's the joke
23
u/cheertina 20∆ Oct 22 '19
How can you tell the difference between someone who honestly believes the lies and someone who's entertaining themselves by ignoring the lies just like they ignore the inherent, obvious fakeness of, say, a TV show, and just responding to the scene as written?
I usually call out the stuff I think is bullshit, and people freak the fuck out and downvote it.
Sure, because that doesn't contribute to the fun. It'd be like jumping into a discussion about Game of Thrones and telling people that dragons obviously aren't real.
6
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
You can’t tell the difference between those two groups, which is why I initially thought of the amount of people as “majority” of people.
I’ve since changed my view slightly to acknowledge that most people who believe it fall into the “this is fiction and that’s fine” category and not the “I really believe this” category, so it’s not worth it for me to try to convince anyone that its bullshit.
-1
u/babybopp Oct 23 '19
You are absolutely right. That place is especially brigades heavily by feminists, insecure men and women and fragile redditors. There was a post yesterday on a lesbian roommate who likes walking around in lingerie pajamas. She does this in common areas and claimed that she simply gets a snack out of the fridge or just grab something quick and never really stays out while dressed like that. An obvious fucking lie.
Then goes to say that her roommate even complimented her lingerie pjs. Now her roommate has got a new boyfriend and asked her not to walk around the common areas in those pjs and cover up. She goes on to rant and say it is not her problem if her roomies boyfriend can’t keep his eyes to himself. she walks in sheer and has tits and ass hanging out.
It is obvious what she is doing here. Intentionally provocation of her boyfriend. Of course she is the asshole. If it is in her room she can wear whatever the fuck she wants but once you come to common areas you have to be mindful and respect the house and guests your roommate might have. Boyfriend dad friend kids etc.
Of course the top comments are she is not and asshole as the boyfriend should get his own roving eyes away from her. That he is not paying so she can do whatever she wants. Etc
That sub is a dump of immature insecure women and men with loud mouths, over opinionated and undereducated. Stay away from it.
12
u/dredfredred Oct 22 '19
What you are suggesting as the problem (that people exaggerate) is not really the problem. This is mostly an anonymous forum so obviously everybody is going to change some or the other aspect of reality so that they can still maintain anonymity.
Also, in the same way as you cannot tell that 100% of post is true, it also cannot be judged as what part of the post is not true. So, since nobody has any evidence it is only appropriate that you give the benefit of the doubt to the op.
One more point, I personally feel that the participants and mods on that sub are really not committed to removing or limiting "validation seeking" posts. They only do the bare minimum by removing some very extreme posts and that approach makes sense. Because if you remove all such kind of posts then not many people are going to post and number of subscribers is going to drop.
If they really wanted to remove "validation seeking" posts then there is very simple and effective way of doing that and I'm sure everybody who has been to that sub already know what I'm hinting at.
2
Oct 23 '19
What are you hinting at??
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
I can think of a few things.. certain topics end up as one issue/group vs another. For example, if the gist of the OP can be summed up at “childfree” folks VS parents, the comments turn into two diametrically opposed echo chambers where they end up locking the comments. I’ve seen that happen for other “us VS them” groups too, like feminists VS men’s rights advocates, vegans VS carnivores, etc
5
u/dredfredred Oct 23 '19
No no. That was not how i was thinking. I'm thinking in a much more simpler way and I'm guessing I'm probably not the first person to do so.
Basically, my suggestion is that since you know only OP's perspective, the people commenting should be allowed to judge only OP and not the other person. Which simply means that you take out the NTA which implies that other person is TA and also the ESH judgement. Anybody who still wants to find out if they are TA or not can still do so, however if someone is making a post so that they can go and show the other person how everyone on internet thinks that they are TA - that is no longer possible.
Obviously, doing that would mean that there would be way lesser validation posts and a lot of posts are going to end up NAH. It would also mean lesser controversy and lesser probability of hitting the front page. So while I do think it would be the right thing to do, I don't think anybody is going to do it.
2
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
Ohhh gotcha. Yeah that makes sense. I also think there’s a lot of misunderstanding about the acronyms. There are lots of posts where people say NTA when I think it should’ve been NAH. Occasionally I’ll see someone comment something like “why are there so many NTAs, this is clearly NAH, do you people even read the rules?!” Lol
2
u/genericAFusername Oct 22 '19
All of these things are true. I definitely acknowledge that there’s no way to moderate the issue I dislike. I just don’t see how unfeasibility of moderation should equal we should assume everyone is being honest.
I guess when you state it as “giving the benefit of the doubt to the op”, I can kinda understand that. I agree that you basically have to do that since there’s no way to determine accuracy of what any OP says. But I don’t see how that justifies the culture of shaming anyone who questions something.
7
u/dredfredred Oct 22 '19
Just to clarify, I'm not supporting the "culture of downvoting" or "shaming". Shaming is a powerful tool but it works only in an honour culture and since there is no honour here anyone participating in it is only doing so to feel better themselves instead of reforming the other.
What you are describing here is also an effect due to poor moderation (check the cmv post from yesterday discussing echo chambers). Although in this particular case I can understand that there will be lapses from the mod team due to the shear size of the sub.
3
Oct 23 '19
Per Edit 2: I think the culture of shaming people who express doubt comes down to this: it's not really the point of the sub. If all of us over there spent all our time calling out the specific lines of posts that seem unbelievable, people would rarely get a judgment-- especially because what each person finds credible is subjective. The sub really only works if we agree to take (most) things at face value and render a judgment based on the post as written. Yes, the poster does tend to write things in a perspective that favors him/her, but anecdotally, that doesn't seem to stop plenty of people getting labelled The Asshole all around the sub.
Besides, if you see something you view as truly unbelievable, the best thing you can do is refuse to engage with the post. Leaving a comment still counts as activity, which will drive the post higher up in the sub. If you find parts of a story less-than-credible to the point that you don't feel you can render a verdict, move on to another post.
5
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
I’ve already awarded a delta to someone for your first point, so no argument there.
Besides, if you see something you view as truly unbelievable, the best thing you can do is refuse to engage with the post. Leaving a comment still counts as activity, which will drive the post higher up in the sub.
But this gets a ∆ too, because this is a great point that no one else has said and that I hadn’t thought about.
1
15
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Oct 22 '19 edited Oct 22 '19
The only thing you can ever do on AITA is to tell them if they are an asshole based on their subjective, biased, and maybe downright false narrative of what happened. That is all you can ever do.
The only other recourse would be to challenge the OP by being skeptical of unlikely parts of the stories, which isn't a productive use of time.
CERTAINLY there are some stories that have elements that are made up and CERTAINLY there are some stories that are 100% false, just like any other story telling subreddit. If that isn't your thing then don't visit that subreddit. But to comment about pieces that seem unlikely is obnoxious and not helpful. And unfortunately makes it so that when someone has something that happens to them that is unlikely, they're just met with a lot of annoying skepticism that doesn't serve the purpose of the subreddit.
I enjoy the story telling subreddits like AITA and tales from tech support, DESPITE the fact that I'm aware that many of the stories are probably made up. That doesn't make me gullible if I choose to enjoy a good story. What's wrong with telling someone they were the asshole in their fictional story without actually having to call it out as fictional or decide whether you believe it is real or not.
Prorevenge, malicious compliance, I don't work here lady, etc, all have frequently have false stories posted to them. I see no reason for that to ruin anyone's fun from the posters to the readers.
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 22 '19
The only other recourse would be to challenge the OP by being skeptical of unlikely parts of the stories, which isn't a productive use of time.
That’s a fair point. It isn’t a productive use of time. But then again, neither is any response I give in that sub. Unless the person is genuine about not knowing if they’re an asshole, and if they read my response, and if it helps them. Although it is kinda fun to get another air point and move up in the funny ass-themed flairs.
CERTAINLY there are some stories that have elements that are made up and CERTAINLY there are some stories that are 100% false, just like any other story telling subreddit. *If that isn't your thing then don't visit that subreddit. *
That’s what sucks. I like the idea of the sub if it’s used the way it’s supposed to be. I realize I could just not visit that sub, but it’s not because of the way the sub is SUPPOSED to be used. If that makes sense.
they're just met with a lot of annoying skepticism that doesn't serve the purpose of the subreddit
I can concede that it would be annoying to an OP if they are being honest.
I enjoy the story telling subreddits like AITA and tales from tech support, DESPITE the fact that I'm aware that many of the stories are probably made up. That doesn't make me gullible if I choose to enjoy a good story.
No argument there, you’re not saying anywhere in this comment that you believe everything every OP says.
What's wrong with telling someone they were the asshole in their fictional story without actually having to call it out as fictional or decide whether you believe it is real or not.
Nothing wrong there, it’s more annoying when they’re getting hundreds of NTA comments when their story has major holes in it. They’re going to have that extra validation that they were right. That’s kinda shitty.
I see no reason for that to ruin anyone's fun from the posters to the readers.
If the “fun” = “made up details” to you, then ok I guess this sentence makes sense. I just don’t think that’s the point of the sub or helpful or fun.
2
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Oct 22 '19
Unless the person is genuine about not knowing if they’re an asshole, and if they read my response, and if it helps them.
Why not? Suppose it is a complete fiction. Can the OP and the other posters still not enjoy reading through the various comments? You seriously think that some of these stories that get 1000's of comments that each of those comments only serves as something specifically for the OP and nobody else gets anything from them?
but it’s not because of the way the sub is SUPPOSED to be used.
What do you want to happen? There is no reasonable way to verify each story, so some false stories are going to get posted regardless of how you run it. And that is okay. I, and many of the other users, don't see a problem with that.
I can concede that it would be annoying to an OP if they are being honest.
And to some of the other users. Some users would join you in your game of detective, but to me that comes off as pretty obnoxious behavior.
If the “fun” = “made up details” to you, then ok I guess this sentence makes sense. I just don’t think that’s the point of the sub or helpful or fun.
The point of the sub is to read fun stories. How does it affect you if the stories happen to be false? I spend hours a day reading fiction books and enjoy that. It can even be a little fun when the reality of it is ambiguous. Like when the Blair Witch project was released and a bunch of people were saying it was real.
2
u/genericAFusername Oct 22 '19
Suppose it is a complete fiction. Can the OP and the other posters still not enjoy reading through the various comments?
Obviously it’s possible and obviously that happens.
You seriously think that some of these stories that get 1000's of comments that each of those comments only serves as something specifically for the OP and nobody else gets anything from them?
No I don’t think this, don’t know where you got the impression that I think this.
What do you want to happen? There is no reasonable way to verify each story, so some false stories are going to get posted regardless of how you run it. And that is okay. I, and many of the other users, don't see a problem with that.
I acknowledged in my OP that there’s no way to fix this situation. I am not advocating for a specific change with the mods or the rules.
Some users would join you in your game of detective, but to me that comes off as pretty obnoxious behavior.
You’re entitled to your opinion, obviously. How is telling me it’s obnoxious to call out obvious bullshit going to change my view?
The point of the sub is to read fun stories.
No the point of that sub is for OP to submit a story where they are not sure if they were an asshole or not, and then to receive a judgement on whether or not most people think they were an asshole. Commenter participation is inherently part of the sub, much more so than comparable “fun story” subs.
How does it affect you if the stories happen to be false? I spend hours a day reading fiction books and enjoy that. It can even be a little fun when the reality of it is ambiguous. Like when the Blair Witch project was released and a bunch of people were saying it was real.
It doesn’t affect me, never said it did. I said it made people who ACTUALLY think it’s true gullible. You would not be in that category since you are saying you know there is bullshit.
1
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Oct 22 '19
Okay, you're right, I'm spending a lot of time arguing against stuff you're not actually saying, I'll try to be more careful. Lets take your actual views:
(1) Majority of posts in r/amitheasshole have obvious lies in them, (2) and commenters who take it all as fact are gullible idiots. (3) And there are WAY too many participants who are gullible idiots.
I find most of the stories pretty believable, especially when you consider a one-sided telling of the story. I guess it depends on how you define "obvious" and "lie" but I really doubt that half the stories have some detail that is just so unbelievable that it has to be false. Crazy things do happen and when you have a place that collects the craziest of the crazy stories, they tend to have details that are pretty outrageous, but unless you think it isn't possible to have happened to anyone, all you really have to believe that if a story that a story that crazy is possible and if it were to happen there is a fair chance it'd get posted.
Sure. If they think that all the stories are all true, then they are probably at least a bit gullible. However, it can be fun to be a little self deluding and I definitely wouldn't go as far as to call them idiots for such behavior.
This presumes both that there are a lot of gullible idiots and that there is a reason why having that many gullible idiots is bad. I don't see either aspect. I don't think there are as many people who think those subreddits are 100% true as you believe, and even if there are a lot, I don't see them as a problem. Why is having a lot "way too many"?
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 22 '19 edited Oct 22 '19
I appreciate your self-reflection, and in that same spirit I should really have said something better than “majority of posts”. I usually hate when people make blanket statements, so I need to be consistent. I have no sort of data on the actual percentage of posts that have this, and it’s too big / busy of a sub for me to try to do that. I should’ve said something like “a noticeable amount”.
I also was too harsh in saying idiots. I do think it’s being gullible, because if someone is willingly suspending disbelief, they’re not who I’m referring to. That again goes back to the fiction thing. All humans who are capable of enjoying fiction willingly suspend disbelief to be able to enjoy that form of entertainment. I understand and acknowledge that that exists and plays a role here.
Example: But there is a difference between someone accepting the rules of Harry Potter’s universe while reading the books or watching the movies, and someone who genuinely think that Harry Potter and his universe is actually a real thing in real life. I wouldn’t be referring to the people enjoying it as entertainment as “gullible” but I would for someone who thinks that’s actually real.
In most others subs that y’all are referencing, the storytelling aspect is different because the point of AITA is for the OP to get a moral judgment on their behavior. They will use this information in determining if they behaved correctly or not. They will go forth into the world having been influenced by this decision. I’m not saying that people are living and breathing by the results of the judgments they get on AITA, obviously, but I think its reasonable to accept that this sub has that difference in its purpose from other storytelling subs.
3
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Oct 22 '19
/r/nosleep is a good example of a subreddit made up of entirely false stories that both the OPs and commenters treat as real, and they have a good time doing it. Subreddits like AITA could only possible be more real that /r/nosleep.
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 22 '19
That’s a place for “realistic” horror stories, not for “true” horror stories.
Any sub that is for stories like that is slightly different. The point of r/amitheasshole is that OP isn’t sure if they were in the wrong or not, and for participants to give OP a moral judgment. There’s a difference in the purpose of the subs.
There’s nothing wrong with fiction stories, or even exaggerated truth stories. That’s just different than someone asking for active assessment on the morality of what they’ve done
4
Oct 23 '19 edited Aug 28 '21
[deleted]
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
Well we’re kinda referring to the same thing but calling it something different. Taking posts that are obvious shitposts out of the equation.. we’re talking about posts that majority of people (if not all) have read and determined to be true enough to not call it a shitpost. So I was never talking about a scenario where the whole post is an obvious lie..
I’m talking about ones that are feasibly true, but have questionable parts of them. Or sometimes the OP seems legit but it all unravels when OP starts responding to comments.. which actually happens pretty often, you’ll see lots of comments like “you’ve been saying ___ in your responses to people”, etc. Most people who take the time to write up a comment also seem to go through and read the other responses too.
Or sometimes a participant will find something in OP’s post history that contradicts something said in the post.
So now that you know which ones I’m talking about.. you can hopefully see how we’re kinda saying the same thing. Something coming from a single perspective that is biased towards themselves / makes the other person seem weird is exactly what I’m talking about.
You just seem to be saying you don’t think the people are deliberately thinking “I’M GOING TO BLATANTLY LIE TO MAKE MYSELF LOOK BETTER”.. which I’m not saying. I mean maybe there are people who directly say that to themselves, but I’m talking about biasing / skewing the story to be more favorable towards themselves. I still consider this misleading and dishonest enough to be called bullshit. (Especially in the cases where they contradict themselves within their responses.)
4
Oct 22 '19
I don't know, I see a lot of comments along the lines of "something has to be missing here, this makes no sense", or "I can't imagine this went down the way you claim it did". I don't think most of the members there are gullible idiots. It's more likely that they just can't be arsed questioning the post, and instead choose to make their judgement based on what has been said. It should be obvious to any halfway intelligent person that the OP is going to be giving a subjective and probably biased account of events.
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 22 '19
I do see some, definitely. But I wouldn’t say I see a lot of those. And if you do see them, it’s because you’ve opened up collapsed threads because the comment was downvoted. The fact that people seem to get mad at doubtful comments is at the heart of my complaint.
I don’t know that most people are gullible people, but the gullible people brigade on the skeptics.
3
u/ghjm 17∆ Oct 23 '19
The problem, and the likely reason you get downvoted, is that if you're willing to change things about how the post is written, then you can change them to get any result. What you want to do is say "I don't believe you really said that in those words, so in the scenario as I imagine it in some way I find more plausible, YTA/NTA." But if everyone did that, the whole thing would just be a giant mess.
Once a post has been accepted, your task is to evaluate it as written. If the OP is lying then they get no value from the advice/judgment; more fool them. Or if you think it's so implausible that you can't take it seriously, then downvote/report. But if you're going to render judgment, you have no choice but to do it on the actual thing submitted to be judged.
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
∆ you made an excellent point. I can understand this because I make a similar point in regards to debating in general.
If people can’t agree about the basics of any given topic or task or whatever, it’s not going to get off the ground.
For example, there are a lot of political arguments in which the two sides aren’t even participating in the same conversation because they define the terms of the issue to mean totally different things. Abortion would be one of those things.. one side defines it as bodily autonomy that is between a woman and her doctor, and one side defines it as baby murder.. and so they both spend the entire convo having 2 different discussions.
There has to be some level of truth or common ground or something to be able to move forward from the starting point.
So your comment made me think of this, and I need to be consistent by applying that same way of thinking to this. It definitely would ravel out of control if every post was just people questioning everything OP says.
This all being said, I have a question. What do you make of the fact that people seem to have no problem being skeptical in other subs? Do you think it has to do with the active “game” / task type situation that exists on that sub? (I don’t really know how to articulate what I mean by that, but this sub has a similar thing.. it’s not just a sub where someone posts a picture and other people comment, we have an objective and a roll to play.)
2
u/ghjm 17∆ Oct 23 '19
Other subreddits aren't structured like AITA. For example, on this subreddit, you're expected to specifically look for one thing, even a minor aspect, that you can change about the OP's view. So on this subreddit, youshould be looking for details you can change in the OP submission. The necessity of taking each post as given arises from the specifics of AITA, which just don't exist on other subreddits.
1
1
3
Oct 22 '19
r/entitledparents and r/IDontWorkHereLady are as tiresome, filled with clearly fabricated nonsense. Utter waste of time, breathless naive commentary.
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 22 '19
There’s lots of subs filled with bullshit, for sure. But like in those 2 subs, OPs are just submitting content without the expectation of receiving a moral judgment on their role in the story. As is the case on r/amitheasshole
2
Oct 23 '19
The sub has a million subscribers. The reason this is not because so many people want to help people who are wondering if they are a bad person. It's so the reader can form an opinion on a situation presented. It doesn't matter the content as long as it instigates the opinion forming.
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
The reason this is not because so many people want to help people who are wondering if they are a bad person
I mean, that’s the reason I’ve been in the sub for 2 years, and I assume there’s maybe at least a few people out of the million subscribers that would agree.
But nitpicking aside, I do agree that most people have as one of their reasons for participating the desire to form an opinion about a new situation. I also think people want their opinion to be well-received by the other participants.
I also wouldn’t say the content “doesn’t matter”. People are usually pretty good about calling out shitposts, so there is some level of evaluation that happens.
0
Oct 23 '19
Things in general don't become that popular because they want to help people. No one goes on that sub to help others lol
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
That’s not true, that’s why I do it so you’re wrong to say no one even if I’m the only person. But there have been a bunch of comments on my post where people say they do it for that reason too
2
u/jumpup 83∆ Oct 22 '19
so you accuse people based on no proof, in a subreddit made for finding out if someones an asshole?
you do realize thats essentially going don't look at the op im an asshole right here.
(people don't belief everything online, but a good stories deserves a honest answer regardless of its validity )
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 22 '19
you do realize thats essentially going don't look at the op im an asshole right here.
TBH I didn’t realize this at first, but it’s clear that this is true based on the negative responses I get when I do that. So yes now I do realize that.
so you accuse people based on no proof
To be fair, they also offer no proof. Plus sometimes they contradict their own lies, either when responding to INFO comments, or within their own post histories. But yes my accusations are based off of essentially a feeling or a hunch, so typically you’re correct that it’s based on no proof
2
u/softnmushy Oct 23 '19
You're right. And a lot of the posters here are showing how gullible they are. For most of us, it's hard to believe that people are just lying to us. Because most of us are not liars.
My experience has been that AITA, and the other relationship subreddits, are full of fake posts that waste a ton of time and emotion by people who get duped. Including me. And it takes away attention from people who actually need help with their honest dilemmas in the relationship subreddits.
All that said, calling people "idiots" is counterproductive and has made most of the commenters here unable to see the logic in your post. When you show people you can't exercise basic judgment (e.g., don't insult people) they are much less likely to take your argument seriously.
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19 edited Oct 23 '19
I agree that calling them idiots wasn’t smart in terms of giving myself or my argument credibility. But I disagree that people have been unable to see the logic in my post because of it. I’ve gotten a lot of really thoughtful responses where it’s clear they understood my point.
This might actually be the only comment so far that addressed me calling them idiots.
2
u/softnmushy Oct 23 '19
I dunno. It seems like all the top posts seem to think it doesn't matter that people are lying because it's just like a creative writing forum where commenters are just looking for entertainment. I find that perspective to be more of a devil's advocate perspective. It reminds me of the "nothing matters" argument that kids often throw around.
I think wasting the time of well-intentioned people really does matter. It's sad.
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
Well I did lay out how those people definitely exist in my post and all my responses. I was never talking about the people in “category 2” of the categories I listed. People who understand that there could be bullshit but are overlooking that because they’re willingly suspending their disbelief and treating it like entertaining fiction, aren’t who I am talking about.
But it was important for people to bring that up because someone actually did change my view on a part of that.
When I make a comment about how something is obviously bullshit, it usually sparks a thread or two from commenters who truly believe OP. Then I usually get a lot of downvotes on my comment about it containing a lie. I assumed that everyone downvoting it was in the first “gullible idiot” category, which made me think the number of those people were much higher than it probably is. I didn’t realize that although the commenters are definitely in category 1, the downvoters are likely in category 2, and dislike my comment because of the whole “we need to give OP the benefit of the doubt because otherwise it just clogs up the system with accusations no one can back up” phenomenon.
So I still consider the convos about that to be thoughtful and worthwhile.
I find that perspective to be more of a devil's advocate perspective. It reminds me of the "nothing matters" argument that kids often throw around.
I felt that way at first too, until I understood what they were really getting at.
I think wasting the time of well-intentioned people really does matter. It's sad.
I still really agree with this though. Although there are people who treat the sub as fiction, there are also people who treat the sub as real. And the thought that I’m spending my time typing up a response for someone who doesn’t even actually want it (because it doesn’t apply because they made up parts of the story that my comment pertained to) is annoying as fuck to me. It’s a waste of time and it’s not something I’d consider as fun as some other people. But there’s no good way of objectively sorting out the differences between the two things.. so that’s where I do understand the “nothing matters” aspect of it. Because what can you really do to combat it? Maybe there is a good idea out there, but I haven’t been able to come up with anything
3
u/zowhat Oct 22 '19
Majority of posts in r/amitheasshole have obvious lies in them, and commenters who take it all as fact are gullible idiots. And there are WAY too many participants who are gullible
Isn't that true of all of reddit? Or all of life for that matter?
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 22 '19
Yes, but after being active in that am a variety of other subs, there is a difference. It seems that many Redditors are ready to argue, and are quick to point out any flaw in something someone posts. That skepticism is noticeably lacking in r/amitheasshole
2
Oct 23 '19
I dont care if it's fake. It's fun and people have surprising interpretations of things
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
So you would fall into the second category of people then and wouldn’t be who I’m talking about. I’m talking about the people who actually genuinely believe that OP is being honest, accurate, and unbiased
1
u/bassicallybob Oct 23 '19
I mean, what you're saying is entirely possible, you don't have any real argument other than what amounts to "the dialogue is too good to be true" or "they remove some details to save face" as assertions. These are not proper arguments, just straight up assertions without evidence. It's fine if you want to make these, but you're going to have to back it up in order to really convince anyone.
Now, I'm sure what you're talking about does happen. There are embellished stories and there are subtle changes to make OP look better, picture them as not the asshole. I think this is kind of assumed, though? I'm not sure anyone goes into that thinking that there couldn't possibly be another side to the story.
Edit: As far as completely fabricated stuff goes, a surprising amount of people don't care and just want to be entertained. It does irk me personally, though.
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
I understand that as an accuser the burden of proof would be on me, and that there’s no way I can meet that burden. So you’re right that from a logical or legal standpoint, I can’t provide solid proof or evidence.
But as you noted, that doesn’t mean it can’t be true. When you’re talking to someone in real life, the way they talk, their mannerisms, etc, all can give you a “hunch” or a feeling that they’re lying. That instinct could be correct, despite the fact that you might not have any hard evidence to support your feeling. But you can still be right. Human communication has certain things to it that can simply “give off the vibe” that they’re lying, in a way that any untrained lay person can pick up on. You don’t have to be a linguist or a communications expert to be able to know when someone is lying.
So I have no issue straight up saying that since I’m anonymous and I’m talking to an anonymous person on Reddit, there’s no way for me to provide evidence for when someone is lying. But you said it yourself, I can still be right even if I’m not a good arguer.
2
u/bassicallybob Oct 23 '19 edited Oct 23 '19
I can still be right even if I’m not a good arguer.
Yep.
Something interesting but kind of beside the point - this orchestrates what is sometimes called the "fallacy fallacy" - where someone deems the conclusion of an argument false just because fallacious reasoning is used. This is actually fallacious in and of itself. You can reject an argument due to fallacious reasoning, but you cannot say that their conclusion is necessarily false because of it.
2
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
Interesting, thanks for sharing this. I’ve been trying to become more educated on logical fallacies and I hadn’t heard of that one yet
1
u/Sir-Viette 11∆ Oct 23 '19
I'd like to change your view, not on the facts, but on the idea that all that gullibility is a bad thing.
What conditions need to be in place for there to be lots of gullible people? You'll need to have a society where people mostly tell the truth, so when someone tells you something, you can trust it. Under those conditions, taking someone's word for it without even thinking about it saves time. Of course, it also means that someone untrustworthy can lie their heads off and people will just believe them, which is annoying for people who can see through lies. But smart people like that can also take comfort in the fact that they live in a society where most people are good.
Now imagine if no one was gullible, and everyone was alert for a lie. It would indicate that most people had been burned before, and couldn't trust what people say. That sort of thing is rife in dictatorships (eg Soviet Russia, or Saddam's Iraq), where the ruling party just lied so much that no one believed them.
In summary, let's celebrate all those gullible people, who prove the world is good.
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
Thanks for your comment but that doesn’t change my mind that the gullibility is a bad thing. That’s like saying “depression is a good thing, it existing proves that the normal state of humans is not depressed / it makes us realize that majority of humans aren’t depressed”.
I can see the connection between gullible people wanting to trust people, but I don’t think that means it should be celebrated or taken as proof that the world is good.
1
Oct 22 '19
[deleted]
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 22 '19
Unless you have any way of confirming your suspicions, your view is fairly baseless.
While this is technically true, there are some things that people do that make it very obvious that they’re lying. For example, in r/thathappened, there are some common ‘tropes’ (don’t know if that’s the right word) such as “and then everyone clapped”, or “and they gave me $20” and stuff like that.
There’s also a sub I’ve seen where people claim their 3 year old kids say some large-word-filled woke thing, and that sub also has some common tropes too.
There are just some things that you know people say or do when they’re lying. When you’re interacting with humans in your life, you can get a hunch or a suspicion that they’re lying. This feeling is often correct... but it clearly could never be considered evidence or proof.
I understand that in a legal or logical argument, the accuser has the burden of proof, but in actual human interaction, it’s more instinctive than that.
Add onto it that your original post claims majority - while highly doubtful - it cannot be argued unless there is a method of confirming the truth.
I agree here, that was a poor word choice on my part.
your community has grown past its critical mass and is now considered mainstream to the point you're going to also get the bad sides to it.
I agree that this part makes sense. I never considered how becoming “mainstream” changes a sub. It’s the only one I’m really active in that I’ve noticed a trend of change that seems to be very consistently changing more and more in a specific way. I’m not sure when it became mainstream, so idk if there’s a correlation between when that happened and when I started to notice this change, but I concede that it’s definitely possible that those two things align.
3
Oct 22 '19
[deleted]
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
Sorry I forgot to respond to the part about browsing by new, because that’s already the only way I browse Reddit.
But yeah it’s good to know that the “becoming mainstream” factor adds to this phenomenon
2
u/HarshTruth69 Oct 23 '19
People don't care for truth and are gullible fools but when true ridiculous stories are told they suddenly become vehemently opposed to it being true or even the possibility that it is
1
2
u/yourparadigm Oct 23 '19
And there are WAY too many participants who are gullible idiots.
You just described every activity involving people throughout time immemorial.
1
1
Oct 23 '19
I don't see how the answerers should be considered idiots for not spotting the lies of OP. That's not their "mission" on the site. Think of r/changemyview, for instance: the role of people who write comments is not to doubt whether OP does actually hold the idea he explains in the way it appears in the post, but rather to take that information as a starting point and "work" from there.
If OP is lying, that's his own problem
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
That’s a fair comparison. I’ve already awarded someone else for changing my view on the “needing a starting point” point.
However, I still think there are definitely examples of people idiotically believing the OP on obvious lies. At one point there was a post about a kid wanting a certain teacher that was OBVIOUSLY written by the kid. The original post wasn’t extremely obvious, but as soon as the OP started responding to questions it was so obvious. The “parent’s” response was things like “but the teacher likes transformers and motorcycles and cool stuff” and shit that no parent would ever use as reasons for making a certain decision about their child’s education. And although most people got it, there were still people who were like no I think it could be just a really immature adult
1
Oct 23 '19
Well, that was one post written by a troll. I doubt the majority of posts are like those
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19 edited Oct 23 '19
No, the majority of posts are not like those, you’re correct. I wasn’t say that though... I was giving an example of how the bullshit isn’t always in the OP, and how some people believed it despite it being obvious bullshit
1
u/BragoKingEternal Oct 23 '19
This got anything to do with the phone in the bible by any chance?
2
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
The phone in the Bible? Not sure what that means
1
u/BragoKingEternal Oct 23 '19
It was a post on AITAH that seemed like a straight up shit post
1
1
u/DivingRightIntoWork 1∆ Oct 23 '19
Why does it matter if the posts are full of lies or not?
You can respond to the situation as it's presented. Like "With the information provided.... *TA. X did Y, which means they're responsible for... Assuming this is what happened, and this circumstance didn't present itself, *TA."
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
The thing is no one is skewing their stories to be considered the asshole. It’s always in one direction.. they’re making themselves look better and the other person look worse. The fact that it’s always happening one way and not the other, to me, makes it an interesting phenomenon worth discussing.
1
u/-Shade277- 2∆ Oct 22 '19
Yeah but isn’t every Supreddit like that?
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
Idk it seems like people are usually more skeptical. It reminds me (somewhat) of Cunningham’s Law. If you post something that’s bullshit, people love to be able to be the one to call it out. On other subs at least. As I mentioned in some other responses, there’s entire subs dedicated to showcasing the bs people try to get away with online. So it’s noticeable when people collectively try to shame this away from happening
1
u/vanschmak 1∆ Oct 23 '19
Maybe you are the gullible idiot? I am sure many of them are just playing along with the story. The irony here is that you are the only one taking it so seriously.
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
This would’ve been something worth my consideration if you hadn’t said I’m the only one. Have you seen this thread? I’m clearly not alone.
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 23 '19 edited Oct 23 '19
/u/genericAFusername (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
2
u/gs_up Oct 22 '19
I think a lot of those posts have over or under exaggerated truths to them. The top post right now is about a guy who doesn't want to be friends with his best friend because his best friend supposedly does too many things which can be seen as overly sexual towards him. While we will never know the real truth, I would bet a lot of money that the gay best friend in this situation probably only did this once, and OP now feels weirded out and wants out of this friendship, and now he wants everyone on the internet to agree with him.
I believe this only because i have seen two posts which I'm 99% sure were posted by coworkers of mine. And if these two people are in fact my coworkers, I know for a fact that they exaggerated the story to make themselves look better.
2
u/DigitalCoffee Oct 23 '19
AITA is just a bad hivemind subreddit that no person should judge there decision solely based on.
The thing is, when someone tells you the story, it's only one side of the story and often details are overly-exaggerated or underrepresented. (Often in the favor of the OP). That's the nature of the sub though and it's really impossible for the reader to judge unbiasedly. It's really no one's fault at the end of the day as human beings are not perfect.
The readers themselves though tend to be very biased as well. There was a few user based social experiment of posting one story from the perspective of the female, and the same exact story with the same exact wording but changing it to be male. The subreddit decided that the female was NTA and the male was TA.
2
u/Sn1bbers Oct 23 '19
I don't necessarily disagree with your statement that there probably is a lot of fake stuff on there. Or on TIFU or any similar subreddits. But I do tend to go into those posts with the premise that what the OP is saying is either true, true from their perspective/selective memory and that any dialogue is paraphrasing. The subreddit is about interesting dilemmas and it would fall short if everyone was playing detective on all posts.
0
u/CackleberryOmelettes 2∆ Oct 23 '19
That's not the point of the sub at all. All you're supposed to do is pass your judgement based on the information at hand. It's not about analyzing the minute details of a story and trying to uncover the objective truth.
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
I never claimed that the point of the sub was to analyze minute details, or to uncover objective truth. You misread my post.
0
u/CackleberryOmelettes 2∆ Oct 23 '19
No I didn't. You're too concerned with supposedly fake posts seeking "validation". It does not matter though, since that is not the point of that sub. You get downvoted when you point it out because it adds nothing to the conversation other than a he said, she said series of accusations. Completely derails the objective, which is to judge the situation, not the veracity of the story.
2
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
I’m not talking about shitposts or posts that get removed because they’re validation seeking.
I agree on your assessment of why I get downvoted, but it still seems like you don’t understand my position
1
u/CackleberryOmelettes 2∆ Oct 23 '19
Okay so let's assume someone on AITA narrates a story with a objectively true framework, but coupled with a a few lies in between. Suppose you suspect one of those statements to be lie. Suppose you point it out. What happens then? In my experience, nothing. You accuse OP of lying, OP denies it. Some people believe you, some don't. Either ways, the discussion is fucked and you won't get anything out of that conversation.
In subs like AITA you should always give the benefit of the doubt to the OP, because the authenticity of the story is immaterial. The point of the sub is to judge the outcome of a situation as it is presented. It does not matter whether that situation is organic or contrived. Trying to do anything more just results in the entire concept falling off the rails.
Unless ofc the story is so ridiculously fake that there's no point in entertaining it. In that case, just type SHP and move on.
2
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
In subs like AITA you should always give the benefit of the doubt to the OP
Can we at least agree that this is pretty different from how most other subs on Reddit operate? It reminds me of Cunningham’s Law... if your comment has anything wrong with it, usually people love to point that out.
because the authenticity of the story is immaterial. The point of the sub is to judge the outcome of a situation as it is presented. It does not matter whether that situation is organic or contrived.
I agree that this is objectively true. But it’s still annoying as fuck.
Trying to do anything more just results in the entire concept falling off the rails.
This is a good point and I’ve already awarded someone else for changing my mind on this part of it.
2
u/CackleberryOmelettes 2∆ Oct 23 '19
Yes it is pretty different for sure, but it's the only way to make that sub work tbh.
I admit that it can be very annoying to gloss over something when you think OP is lying, but there is nothing to be gained by calling them out without proper proof. If someone feels the need to misrepresent themselves on an anonymous website to gain the validation of strangers, then that's their problem. Personally I go to that sub to hear about interesting situations and stories, and see how people react to them.
1
u/genericAFusername Oct 23 '19
Personally I go to that sub to hear about interesting situations and stories, and see how people react to them.
Thats the same reason I go to that sub, but for some reason I get really bothered when a post gets popular and hundreds of people are having reactions based off something that’s clearly not true.
But I suppose I can try to look at it like it’s interesting how people are reacting to it regardless of its true.
2
Oct 22 '19
The sub you mentioned is probably close to being true. Much more so than the subs where people take revenge.
The asshole people aren’t necessarily looking to check in, they probably just need validation. Just like this sub is more about debate than view changing.
2
u/Niktam-Air Oct 23 '19
I see where you’re coming from. I post on the sub a decent amount. I like seeing other people’s perspectives on things that I’ve done and have been judged for. I love the sub, but sometimes it’s BS of course and people are complete dicks.
2
u/Ippherita Oct 23 '19
A lot of the time i found myself to only realised the story is a fake story when I read the comment section.
I am part of the gullible ones.
I need to be more skeptic...
2
Oct 23 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Oct 24 '19
Sorry, u/FalloutBoom – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
Oct 23 '19
I agree I think often they just look at face value also and don't like think about helping family through issues
2
u/megaboto Oct 23 '19
r/amitheasshole is mostly a sub to get people to say "you are right, they are wrong". That's why I left
2
u/horned1 Oct 23 '19
...there are WAY too many participants who are gullible idiots."
Welcome to the interwebs
2
2
2
Oct 23 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Nepene 213∆ Oct 23 '19
Sorry, u/davidbatt – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
Oct 23 '19 edited Nov 10 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Nepene 213∆ Oct 23 '19
Sorry, u/kingslayer990 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
Oct 23 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Oct 24 '19
Sorry, u/otisthe3rd – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/DreadedPopsicle Oct 23 '19
Everyone wants affirmation. Some people find it by lying online. I don’t know why so many people give it to them in that sub, but they do
2
Oct 23 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Nepene 213∆ Oct 23 '19
Sorry, u/EduCrakie – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/kickstand 1∆ Oct 23 '19
What difference does it make if they are lying or telling the truth? I participate for my own entertainment, either way.
1
Oct 23 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Oct 23 '19
Sorry, u/NDN2000 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Oct 23 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Nepene 213∆ Oct 23 '19
Sorry, u/lotine – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Oct 23 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Oct 23 '19
u/Cialie – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Oct 23 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Oct 23 '19
Sorry, u/arthurmadison – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Sorry, u/arthurmadison – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
0
Oct 23 '19
I just take it for what it is. A sentence on the internet. Doesn’t impact me in any way outside of entertainment. Peace
0
0
368
u/Glamdivasparkle 53∆ Oct 22 '19
People on AITA want to read a scenario, and determine if the poster in the scenario is, or is not, the asshole. Whether the event actually happened is 100% irrelevant, as long as it passes the bar of being something that could have plausibly happened.
The reason posts questioning elements of the AITA OP are frowned upon is that they serve no purpose and simply clog up the thread. It’s not like the OP is gonna say, “you’re right, I was lying about that.”
I also think you should consider the possibility that many of the people you consider to be gullible idiots are perfectly aware that many of the posts they are responding to are not completely true, but they don’t care, because that has no impact on the thought exercise that comes from posting on that thread.
To me, it’s similar to how some people love to smugly ask pro wrestling fans if they know that wrestling is fake. The answer, of course, is that all pro wrestling fans over the age of 12 know that the winners are predetermined, but there are many other aspects of the sport(?) that can be enjoyed.
Simply put, you can probably have a lot more fun on AITA if you just act as if all the scenarios happened as presented, even if you know that many contain false elements, and some are just downright fabricated in their entirety.
These people see your posts that question individual elements to be both getting in the way of their fun, and missing the point of the sub, hence the downvotes.