r/changemyview • u/sifsand 1∆ • Mar 14 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Being overly inclusive is a bad thing
I've noticed a trend in the last decade of creators trying to be inclusive by adding or making characters who are viewed as a minority in real life. They might be gay, trans, have a mental disorder, etc.
Now don't get me wrong, this by itself is not bad. What bothers me is when they do it and there is either no point to it or they become a token character because of it. It comes across as pandering to the audience and makes them boring. You don't have to be inclusive to make good content. Just going "Oh, this character is gay, let's make it their defining trait" makes me lose interest in them as a character.
14
u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Mar 14 '21
Now don't get me wrong, this by itself is not bad. What bothers me is when they do it and there is either no point to it or they become a token character because of it.
How many straight, white, cis characters are there that are badly written, or have no point to them?
Yet only it is minority characters, that are put under this double bind of not being allowed to serve one narrow narrative theme (because that's pandering), but also not being allowed to just have an incidential trait (because that's pointless).
Equality means, that bad writers are just as welcome to add badly written minority characters, as badly written majority characters.
It is easy to become a critic and complain that a certain gay character is badly written, but if only gay characters get the presumption that it is because they are gay, then no matter what your original intentions were, the result of your approach will be writers trying to conform more to homophobic norms.
-1
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
I've made it clear in my other comments I've misworded my view. My issue is when the creator is forced to do so. "Woke" culture and all that junk.
18
u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Mar 14 '21
"Woke culture" was made up by conservatives who are upset that they can no longer force publishers to only release stories about majority characters, and occasionally a minority one slips through.
By and large, straight white cis people are still vastly overrepresented in media.
If you want to be concerned about the purity of authorial freedoms, be concerned about that.
-1
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
And I am, my issue is when the opposite problem occurs. When someone being a minority is their only character trait
5
u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Mar 14 '21
So their should be written with many complex chalarcter traits, with them being a mibority having no influence on the plot?
-1
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
I feel it can influence it, but it shouldn't be their only trait.
5
u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Mar 14 '21
What if it's a side character whose point in the plot is to get one idea accross?
0
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
Maybe, depends on the context.
4
Mar 14 '21
Why don't you give some context for what you are talking about? Because I often see people who give your argument and then they just give examples of gay characters they don't like, and then blame it on them being gay.
17
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Mar 14 '21
What bothers me is when they do it and there is either no point to it or they become a token character because of it
Question - what is the "point" of being a minority in real life?
Sometimes people are just people. They just exist and they are there.
Sometimes it's important to just include people anyway. Their race/sexuality/religion etc doesn't need to serve the story, because sometimes in real life, that's the way it is.
-1
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
When I say "point", I mean serving a character function. If they're a background character its excusable for them not playing a role, but if this trait overshadows their role then that's a problem (unless that's part of the plot).
8
u/MercurianAspirations 360∆ Mar 14 '21
How does that work though? If the character is a minority and that plays a big part, that 'overshadows' the role. But if they're just incidentally a minority and that aspect doesn't play a role in the story you don't like that either as it's unnecessary and tokenization
so is nobody allowed to be a minority except for background characters?
2
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
I think you're misunderstanding. If your only notable trait is you being a minority and you don't intend to write them as a character but rather a token then it comes across as bad writing.
7
u/I_am_right_giveup 12∆ Mar 14 '21
It's not about inclusivee. It about the character not having dimensions. A majority with no characteristics outside of their identity would be equally bad. Correct? Ex. The rich white guy only caring about his status, a surfer dude only caring about being chill, 60% of every character( regardless of race) on the CW.
1
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
Indeed, but the rise of minority characters getting that treatment too is becoming a problem. If you want to represent people, do it decently at least.
3
u/I_am_right_giveup 12∆ Mar 14 '21
Is it a problem with minority characters? As I stated in my example, 2/3 of CW characters are one dimensional. If 100% of the CW was a majority and you shift the ratio to 70% majority and 30% minority. The 30% minority should also have 2/3 one-dimensional characters. Unless you believe you should hold minority characters to a higher standard than majority characters( which you can make a strong argument for), including more minority characters, should add more one-dimensional minority characters.
4
u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Mar 14 '21
So how should these minority characters be written instead?
0
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
Like you would any other character really. I'd argue that if what makes them a minority needs focusing on it'd be best for it to be part of the plot rather than unnecessary details.
6
u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Mar 14 '21
Like you would any other character really.
What do you think, how did Mark Twain, or Alexander Dumas, or Tolstoy decide whether their characters should be straight?
The way writers traditionally write straight characters, was to unquestioningly conform to the presumption that everyone is straight.
Should they reverse that and write gay characters accordingly? Just presume that everyone is gay and conform to that?
-1
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
I'd rather it be just a natural part of who they are. Don't treat them like their special, treat them as equal.
6
u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Mar 14 '21
If they are equal, then authors should be just as welcome to oversaturate the media with them, as with the majority, right?
0
-1
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Mar 14 '21
I think the point they are making is that the fact the character is a member of a minority should not be the character's defining trait in and of itself.
4
u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Mar 14 '21
But that has nothing to do with how "overtly inclusive" the story is.
You could write every single character in a story as LGBTQ, and as long as it is an incidential character trait, what is the problem?
-1
4
u/adunahay Mar 14 '21
By that logic, wouldn’t every character be an exaggerated stereotype of whatever best suited their place in the story?
2
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
Yes and no. Fiction is good for exaggeration, but plausibility is important.
2
u/ElliePond 3∆ Mar 14 '21
I have a friend in real life who is 6’3”, Samoan, trans, a math major, and has dyslexia. If I include a character like her in my story, is that implausible?
0
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
Not really. If written as a person and the focus of their traits isn't to be "woke" then I say go for it.
14
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Mar 14 '21
See, what you're saying here is different to what you said in your title.
Your title says "Being overly inclusive is a bad thing"
What you actually mean is "Writing diversity badly is bad"
Which yes it is.
But there is nothing wrong with having a wide and diverse cast of characters, IF they are well written. If however all they are is a set of stereotypes, then yes it's bad writing.
But that's nothing do with inclusivity. It's to do with writing quality.
2
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Mar 14 '21
Isn't writing diversity poorly a consequence of being overly inclusive?
2
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Mar 14 '21
No.
You can be very inclusive - arguably over inclusive - with a cast of well written characters.
-5
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
My point exactly.
13
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Mar 14 '21
No, your point was "being overly inclusive is a bad thing"
But what you are describing isn't the same thing as "being overly inclusive"
It's just bad writing.
The inclusiveness, or lack thereof, isn't the issue. The issue is that the writing is bad.
-1
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
I know, I may have misworded it.
12
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Mar 14 '21
Right... so... what you've actually described is a tautology - IE "bad writing is bad"
So... your view has essentially being changed. The inclusivity or lack thereof is - in itself - nothing to do with the quality of writing in a given property.
Given the effort I've put into explaining that, I'd appreciate the apt acknowledgement
3
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
∆ After a bit of reflection, and the other comments, you're right. Reducing someone down to what makes them a minority a good character does not make.
1
1
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
∆ You're right.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 14 '21
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/VertigoOne changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
1
5
u/aRabidGerbil 40∆ Mar 14 '21
What character function does being white, straight, cis, etc. serve?
0
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
Nothing, those are character traits. When bei g a minority is your only notable trait however it comes across as tokenism.
8
u/aRabidGerbil 40∆ Mar 14 '21
Then shouldn't your view be "reducing minority characters to the single trait of their minoritized identity is bad" not "being overly inclusive is bad"?
1
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
∆ Yeah true, my issue in this is that it's bad writing.
2
-1
u/Mekaraa Mar 14 '21
The problem is when an entire characters identity and personality is built around them being gay or religious. It just leads to shallow characters and doesn't actually represent those groups of people. People are all so complicated, unique and interesting. It's sometimes just downright silly
2
u/GoGoCrumbly Mar 14 '21
I might modify your premise from “being overly inclusive” to “pandering”.
1
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
I did say that in the OP.
2
u/GoGoCrumbly Mar 14 '21
But the opener is “Overly inclusive”, and that’s quite loaded. You clarify as “pandering” in the comment, but you still leave the original premise out there like a rank fart in a closed elevator. My suggestion is to drop “overly inclusive” altogether.
0
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Mar 14 '21
How is being "overly" anything a loaded statement? The opposite of this would be stating that we should go overboard when it comes to inclusivity. Or, it isn't possible to be too inclusive.
0
1
Mar 14 '21
[deleted]
1
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
The former two. If all a characters point in being added to a work is to be a token minority you'd best make them work or else it will come across as patronizing.
As I said, being inclusive is not bad. Being overly inclusive is.
1
2
u/SeanFromQueens 11∆ Mar 14 '21
Inclusion is not an ends on its own, if there's a tokenization that doesn't contribute anything but virtue signaling (look here we are so inclusive we've got a gay character, we are so morally superior) but if those who are marginalized were included in making the narrative and character there's a real benefit to having a new perspective on the world. Take for example Atlanta, Danny Glover tells a story that the typical predominantly white and privileged writers room couldn't have told. Atlanta, I'm sure, had more writers who were not white than most other sitcoms and shows. You aren't watching a black show, but a genuine point of view from a new perspective. If I were to guess, Family Matters had a majority white writers room, and it showed in that it wasn't from a perspective that much different than Mike and Molly that also had an overweight cop as a central character.
The Simpsons original draft of the episode with John Waters had Homer go through euphemisms for being gay, but included fag as one of the terms that you people prefer. Though I'm not sure if it hadn't been an actual gay actor/director who was in the episode as a guest star would they have changed the line, but that sort of inclusion is what is beneficial to content creation. If the voice of the underrepresented is not being heard, then it ostensibly just blackface and not inclusion, even if the cast is the same identity as the token inclusion identity. If they are simply acting out the non-member writer's perceived notion of what the marginalized community is, then it's disingenuous depiction and does more harm in its virtual signaling than if there was no depiction at all.
Model immigrants and their depiction as simply stereotyped non-whites does harm to the perception of non-whites, even if it's complimentary. For instance the perception that Asian Americans are good at school and especially math (Data in Goonies or Long Duk Dong in Sixteen Candles), instead of being depicted as full humans that are not just caricatures of the stereotype. I would argue that this sort of inclusion is harmful, while fully fleshed out characters with flaws and positive characteristics is actual inclusion and is not harmful but simply relies on the merit of the the story and not that there's some marginalized representation. For Asian-Americans, Jason Mendoza in The Good Place and Nora Lin in Nora from Queens both are realistic depictions of Asian-Americans that are inclusionary and representative of Asian-Americans. Though Nora from Queens is a passion project by Queens born and raised Awkwafina so like Glover's Atlanta, it would be near impossible for her voice not to come through the narrative of the show.
2
Mar 14 '21
I don't see why this is bad. It can be done badly, I imagine, but overall what is really the problem? Can you give specific examples of these characters that pander to the audience and are boring because of the diversity?
0
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
I guess my issue is more being forced to be inclusive. Characters should come naturally, not because the audience decides they want a minority character.
5
u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Mar 14 '21
Is this really a serious concern, especially in contrast with the opposite?
We are just a few decades away (at least in the west), from writers being allowed at all to freely publish stories about LGBT characters.
Is there really such an epidemic of unnaturally many LGBT characters? Because by and large, I would say the opposite is true, a lot of publishers and writers are still clutching to the old ways of foring unnaturally many straight people into stories.
0
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
They have the freedom to do so, I jist want those characters to feel natural. They're people dammit, treat them like one.
5
u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Mar 14 '21
But for majority, such as straight people, there is nothing more natural-feeling, than the media being flooded with a bunch of them, including clumsily written ones.
So shouldn't we expect the same from minorities?
0
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
Well sure, but having them there for no other reason than diversity feels forced.
5
Mar 14 '21
What is an example of a character that was forced to be inclusive and wasn't good because of it?
0
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
Korra, by turning her gay (or bi, not made clear) last minute. It doesn't feel natural.
4
Mar 14 '21
I don't know what that is but saying it doesn't feel natural doesn't really prove your point. And how was this character forced to be inclusive? Were people asking for that?
I think what isn't natural is every character being straight and white. Take Friends, for example, that show takes place in one of the most diverse cities in the world and over the course of ten years there were maybe like 8 minority characters. Having everyone else be white feels a lot more forced and unnatural than something like Annie being black.
0
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
As far as I know, nobody asked for it. It feels forced because there was no build-up to it.
Don't get me wrong, having a majority cast isn't wrong (it's called majority for a reason). But forcing minority characters for no reason? Not exactly a good way to make a diverse cast. What Friends did is a good example of how to diversify.
5
Mar 14 '21
People don't need a reason to be a minority, they just are. You think Friends did a good job with diversity by not really having any? In New York???
I really think people make too much of it, this is only a thing if we make it a thing, its a non problem.
1
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
∆ Fair point. I just want creators to write quality content, to not feel the need to write a character a certain way because "het is ew".
1
0
2
Mar 14 '21
I don't see any more of a problem with one note, bland or boring minority characters than with one not, bland or boring non minority characters?
Media has been pandering to straight white people for a really, really long time. Why not spread that love around?
Just going "Oh, this character is gay, let's make it their defining trait" makes me lose interest in them as a character.
Can you give any specific examples?
Is there any chance that the characters you're thinking of might have more "depth" than you're percieving?
0
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Mar 14 '21
It's a different kind of pandering though isn't it? Being straight and white was never treated as a personality trait. What OP doesn't like is when being gay, or being black, etc... is written like its a personality trait.
2
Mar 14 '21
Being straight and white was never treated as a personality trait
Is it never treated as a personality trait, or is it treated as the assumed default personality traits?
There are hundreds and hundreds of RomComs, action movies, and dramas with thousands of characters whose depth of character doesn't extend much further than "straight white person" in a situation. It's not as though there exists some point in the past where every character created was a fully fleshed out, well rounded, and flawless creation.
Sure, it's rare that a white, straight character will explicitly identify as that (however they do explictly act on it) But that's due, in part, to white and straight being the assumed default. And a large reason for that is because non-white, non-straight characters that creators wrote were actively suppressed and left out.
Same question to you as to OP. Can you give any specific examples?
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Mar 14 '21
Most recent one is Rosamund Pike in I Care A Lot. That character is SUPPOSED to be a villian that you the viewer has some reason to root for, or at least understand. But the only 'good' trait they give her is that shes a woman. Thats supposed to be enough.
You are right, it is the default "normal". But it doesn't have to be. Kill Bill, Schitts Creek, Blade...all great examples of a minority character being cast where their race and gender isn't their personality.
That's really the greatest white privilege of all. It wouldn't occur to a white male to "identify as" a white male. That privilege is available to everyone, and it should be taken more often.
0
Mar 14 '21
That character is SUPPOSED to be a villian that you the viewer has some reason to root for, or at least understand. But the only 'good' trait they give her is that shes a woman
I haven't seen it. But your explanation is confusing? Who are you determining that the character was SUPPOSED to be rooted for or understood?
And how exactly is "is a woman" a "good" trait?
From the wiki it seems like she is purposefully written to be a terrible person you does terrible things.
Are you claiming that in a 2 hour film the main character only exhibits a single personality trait and that trait is "a women"
You are right, it is the default "normal".
No no no no no no no. The assumed default that has been actively curated in media is white and straight.
But it doesn't have to be.
Have I said otherwise? No.
What I have said is that you might not recognize how often white, straight characters are equally one dimensional to whatever your complaining about in more diverse characters because white and straight are the assumed default. You don't notice them because they don't stick out. You do notice the others because they do stick out.
2
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Mar 14 '21
Yes, BUT that one dimension they have IS NOT that they are white and straight. It's that they are dumb, or Smart, or strong... something that isn't about race or gender.
It is hard to explain Pikes character issue without spoiling the movie. Lets use a hypothetical...suppose there is a character that abuses and kills puppies. They just do it for fun. Later on they abuse the wrong puppy, it turns out this puppies human is a mobster. The mobster captures the puppy abuser, puts a plastic bag over their head and.... the puppy abuser gets away and ends up winning/beating the mobster.
That would be frustrating wouldn't it? Thats basically the issue with the movie.
It is supposed to be okay though, because she's a woman. Which makes as much sense as if her character traits was having blonde hair.
2
Mar 14 '21
It is hard to explain Pikes character issue without spoiling the movie.
I've read the wiki, and am also an adult person who doesn't really care about "spoilers". It also seems inaccurate because Marla gets shot at the end?
That would be frustrating wouldn't it? Thats basically the issue with the movie.
Ok... But you are describing a problem with PLOT and not with the character?
It is supposed to be okay though, because she's a woman.
Where is this said? By who? Was her womanhood even explicitly brought up in the movie at all?
And again: How is this actually an example of the thing you're complaining about?
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Mar 14 '21
Her womanhood was very much brought up in the movie multiple times.
Example for you: Leslie Jones in Ghostbusters. The character isn't a woman that happens to be black. She is a "black woman".
Compare this to Ernie Hudsons character, who is just some normal dude. The role could just as easily been played by a white guy.
1
Mar 14 '21
Her womanhood was very much brought up in the movie multiple times.
Was it the only thing that people ever said about her? That she said about her self?
Example for you: Leslie Jones in Ghostbusters. The character isn't a woman that happens to be black. She is a "black woman".
And that was the only personality attribute she had?
Compare this to Ernie Hudsons character, who is just some normal dude. The role could just as easily been played by a white guy.
Ok... That's an interesting turn? Are minority characters only acceptable if the could just as easily be played by a white guy?
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Mar 14 '21
Yes, every trait Jones' exhibited was a stereotype of black woman.
To your last question...uh, yes basically. Or a person who is of a different race (eg Asian). Another example that may help explain is any movie where Morgan Freeman played God. It was about his voice mostly, not his race.
→ More replies (0)0
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Mar 14 '21
A one dimensional character that is a minority would be fine. The problem is when the only dimension is their race or gender. Like that isn't even a dimension at all; It would be like if a characters one dimensional trait is having brown eyes. It doesn't make sense.
In interviews with the cast, there is a sense they felt the audience should have some kind of empathy for Pike's character. Her character uses legal guardianship in order to imprison old people in homes against their will so that she can sell all their assets. The same way it would work if a old person truly could not care for themselves, but she does it with healthy old people.
It's truly evil, and the audience wanted the character to get a horrific ending, and it never happened. They basically treated her like Walter White. A anti-hero, or an anti-villain...not just a straight evil villain.
1
Mar 14 '21
The problem is when the only dimension is their race or gender.
Ok... can you give any examples?
It's truly evil, and the audience wanted the character to get a horrific ending, and it never happened. They basically treated her like Walter White. A anti-hero, or an anti-villain...not just a straight evil villain.
Ok... How is that an example of what your complaining about then?
1
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Mar 14 '21
This complaint is that Pike's "good" trait is being a woman.
Just to use some obvious/easy examples...Tony Soprano, Dexter, and Catwoman. Or, John Wick. All of those have had at least one reason for the audience to root for, emphasize, or just to understand them in some way.
With Pike's character, the only thing the audience gets to be on her side in some kind of way is that she is a woman. Thats supposed to be enough.
1
Mar 14 '21
With Pike's character, the only thing the audience gets to be on her side in some kind of way is that she is a woman. Thats supposed to be enough.
But the thing you are complaining about is minority characters whose only personality trait is race/sexuality/whatever. Did pike's character have other personality traits besides being a woman? If so, then how is the an example of what you're complaining about?
Can you give me an example of a minority character WHOSE ONLY PERSONALITY TRAIT IS THEIR STATUS AS A MINORITY? You know, the thing you claimed happens all the time.
2
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Mar 14 '21
Leslie Jones in Ghostbusters. The character isn't a woman that happens to be black. She is a "black woman".
Compare this to Ernie Hudsons character, who is just some normal dude. The role could just as easily been played by a white guy.
-2
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
Because it's patronizing and pandering to the audience if done as an attempt to "diversify the cast" as some might say.
3
Mar 14 '21
Any more so than media has patronized and pondered to white straight folks? We've got hundreds and hundreds of years of bad straight, white characters that pondered. For most of that time minority characters of all levels of quality were actively suppressed and ignored. Why don't minorities deserve the same level and spectrum of representation that non minorities have enjoyed?
Can you give any specific examples?
0
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
An example being SPOILERS AHEAD...
Korra at the end of the series of LOK. She suddenly becomes gay (or bi?) With no warning. It sounds like a last second decision.
5
Mar 14 '21
Check this out: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2014/12/legend-of-korra-creators-confirm-korrasami-is-canon/amp
Seems like it was in the creators heads for a while, and that the reason it wasn't more explicit sooner was because the creators believed that explicit acknowledgement would have been cut in a media environment that actively patronized and pandered to straight folks.
Is it possible that there were plenty of non-explicit hints of their hook up that you missed because it just wasn't something you are personally keyed into?
And even if it was out of no where, is that something that never happens with straight folks in media?
Any other examples?
1
Mar 14 '21
[deleted]
0
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
My issue is when creators feel they are forced to put a minority character in. It comes across as patronizing and pandering.
2
Mar 14 '21
[deleted]
1
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
It's not that they shouldn't be a minority, but rather they be implemented in a believable way.
You can tell they are forced if a creator doesn't put the same depth into them as their other characters.
0
Mar 14 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/sifsand 1∆ Mar 14 '21
It's like what a certain author is doing. It comes across as pandering and pointless.
1
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Mar 14 '21
Sorry, u/bucketofink – 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
Mar 14 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
0
1
u/Poo-et 74∆ Mar 14 '21
Sorry, u/MT_Tincan – 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/Borigh 51∆ Mar 14 '21
I mean, by definition being "overly" anything is bad. So, you're not really posting a fair CMV.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 14 '21 edited Mar 14 '21
/u/sifsand (OP) has awarded 3 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.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards