this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2025
24 points (81.6% liked)

hopeposting

1126 readers
2 users here now

Proof of the indomitable human spirit.

Rules:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
deviant
ultrahamster64
Pencilnoob
TheGayDude
24
[Off-Topic] Should we purge doomers? (self.hopeposting)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by ultrahamster64 to c/hopeposting
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Hi everyone!

As a mod, I started getting some reports on people commenting doomer stuff under posts. They're not really great, they're demotivating and most importantly not really fit this communities vibe. I'm not fond of them, but I can't go removing comments and banning people left and right, because technically, they not breaking any rules. So I feel that the community discussion is in order.

If we going to implement a rule against doomers, I think it is very important to define the rule clearly, for it not to be too broad. So I propose the phrasing "blatant doomerism". Here are examples:

  • Blatant doomerism\doomer trolling (comment gets removed, user banned if spams to many comments like this):

  • adequate discussion with some doomerism (nothing gets to be done by mods, discussion in the comments goes as usual)

So, the discussion is welcome. If I missed anything, or even if it's not needed and there should be no change to the rule set, or you have anything to add, feel free to comment.

all 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] clickyello 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

I think it needs to be defined with more specificity than "blatant doomerism", both to make it more clear when to enforce rather than "I know it when I see it" and also to prevent unfair bans to people talking about something that's a bummer in good faith.

I don't think an environment of toxic positivity is healthy and I fear such a broad definition could foster one, i.e. "oh I can't say that or I might get banned"

on the whole though I like the idea of an additional rule added of the sort. it doesn't seem like the person(s) in the first examples given was saying anything in good faith.

I also think the punishment should give a lot of grace, like first a warning and comment removal before any ban.

edit: a word

[–] ElectroVagrant 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Tend to agree with this, particularly leaning towards warnings first given limited moderation tools.

@[email protected], I think specifying nonconstructive over constructive comments may help here. The first comments you highlight roughly fit the nonconstructive type, being dismissive or not citing any sources to back their resignation.

Deleting those comments and banning them immediately misses an opportunity to encourage them to reevaluate their thinking. A warning first, followed by a temporary ban if they choose to be rude about it, and ultimately a permanent ban if they continue, seems like it may be a decent approach. If it went any further, bring in admins.

[–] clickyello 4 points 1 month ago

that's definitely a good way of putting it.

+1

[–] ultrahamster64 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I absolutely agree that it should be defined specifically, I'm just can't quite figure out how it can be articulated more clearly. I'll think about it more and then update the post.

I also think the punishment should give a lot of grace, like first a warning and comment removal before any ban.

Yes, indeed. I think ban is justifiable if the person in question caught doing it under every post. Other than that, comment removal and warnings are enough

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

I concur, I just don't want to conciliate the few (I think, very few) who are also trolls. It's ok to comment here when in a bad mood or having a rough day, I think the contemptuous responses to other commenters are over the line, given the CONTEXT of being a community that is here to lift each other up, not tear each other down.

[–] clickyello 4 points 1 month ago

yeah I've been chewing on it for a minute and I can't really think of anything other than like you said spamming it under every post makes it obvious that it's a troll and I agree that definitely deserves a ban

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why hang out in hopeposting, of all places, with concerns about "toxic positivity"?

[–] clickyello 11 points 1 month ago

from this link.

"Imagine for a moment that you could truly embody the “good vibes only” mantra. No single negative thought is allowed to enter your mind and you are feeling nothing but bliss – sounds pretty great right? And then, you hear about your dog getting sick and… you feel nothing but happiness? Or perhaps, you hear of the passing of a loved one, or read about a tragedy occurring in the world. These are just a few examples where “good vibes only” starts to feel unproductive and unhelpful."

further reading if you're interested.

TL;DR: if you ignore the reality of upsetting things in favor of good vibes, it's not hope it's gaslighting. hope comes from acknowledging upsetting things and keeping a positive mindset despite them.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

How would you distinguish between doomers, activists, and truth tellers?

There's a lot of crossover between all three. Would you just ban them all?

[–] ultrahamster64 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

How would you distinguish between doomers, activists, and truth tellers? Would you just ban them all?

As I said, I think that only blatant doomerism should be removed. If people are just discussing things that's fine.

There’s a lot of crossover between all three.

Yes, there are. But I think activists and "truth-tellers" should have at least some arguments and non-dismissive attitude, which differentiate them from doomers

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

I would like to see fewer doomers. Doomers who need to move on are those who are just here to drop a dookie and run, who don't interact with the content within comments or by posting. They should just use their downvote, but they seem to need to say something lazy to provoke a response.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Truth-telling is obligatory in all social settings, it's not the same as having a "yeah, honey, you don't know The World" attitude in interactions with others.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Im a doomer by belief and I see it as fine. obviously this is hopeposting, heck the picture even plays on the breathing hopium thing. I would be fine if a negatie post by me were removed once I realized where I had put it and I would avoid and have avoided commenting negatively in this community because. duh.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

I think the examples given are definitely worth deleting but I don't think a harsh punishment should be given, ex. a ban that's 1 week or longer

[–] DragonsInARoom 3 points 1 month ago

Yes

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

I woudn't ban people unless they are repeatedly spreading doom. Most of those comments are coming from all feed. Comment removal and a warning would be sufficient.

Hope is a choice, if a comment doesn't indicate that they want a reason to hope or they refuse to hope I would remove that comment. If they want to hope but their doom is so overwhelming that they can't even think about it I would leave it so someone could provide a reason to be even a little bit more hopeful for the future.

My propositions for different levels of moderation:

  1. If the comment or post has purely depressive outlook at the future without real facts to back it up it will be removed.
  2. If a comment or post including depressive outlook at the future doesn't include question asking for a reason to be hopeful about something it will be removed.
  3. If a comment doesn't include a word hope it will be removed. /joke
[–] Kaiyoto 1 points 1 month ago

My thought is leave them be. Downvotes and blocking should be sufficient if it's bad enough.

[–] Yggnar -3 points 1 month ago

I am not part of this community, this post just happened to land in my feed. My opinion here doesn't really matter. That said, this feels like a good way to build one hell of an echo chamber. Just because you feel your examples aren't in good faith doesn't mean you are correct, or that future comments people want removed will be the same. If what you guys want is an echo chamber where no one is allowed to go against the grain, this is a fantastic idea.