HandsHurtLoL

I don't want this place to be a joyless hellscape of too much reality LOLOL

Humor, sarcasm, wit, satire should all be expected in the comment sections. Humor that punches down or is trolling in the guise of humor I guess will just be downvoted to hell. oh well.

As we collectively discuss this and come to a conclusion that most of us feel a sense of ownership over, I just want to state point blank that I do not want to see duplicate posts with the same link just because two users have opposite viewpoints on the ramifications of the news.

However, I'm fine with one poster giving CNN's article on a newsworthy event and another user posting the Associated Press's article of the same event. Those two news sources (among others) will have different perspectives, voices, and information. That lends itself to robust community engagement, to me.

I'm really open to this place being a location to receive information and a place to discuss it, even at a meta level.

Check my response to CurrMudgeon above for my preliminary views (subject to input!) on how we can provide this expectation in the community rules.

I would want to qualify this a bit to expand, but in short - I would like to see only content that generates discussion or educates the audience. Memes and screen caps of article headlines (I never knew this was a thing on reddit) fail to educate, so I don't see that having a home here.

Content may be:

• Direct url to reliable or reputable source of journalism (as determined by Media Bias Charts from watchdog organizations). Post title must match article title. Poster must include lead or nut graf in body of post text. Poster may communicate their interpretation or editorialization of the news item in the first comment.
• Direct link to a YouTube video from responsible content creators - no podcasts but yes interviews with direct people of interest from trusted media sources and journalists, even if this content is editorial in nature. Editorial content (for both videos and articles) should be clearly marked EDITORIAL: [original title of linked content]
• OC threads seeking community engagement and debate (ex: DISCUSSION: How have anti-trans laws impacted you or people you know directly?) - the community space for these may be an "enter at your own risk" because I don't want to get caught in the quagmire of who has a shitty opinion versus who is a shitty person. For threads like this, I think the most moderation we should be doing should be removing/banning spammers and bots. If users want to feed the trolls in these spaces, then I won't challenge how you like to spend your weekend.

A bad hot take is different than trolling activity. What I've seen the most of is an ineffective version of the Motte and Bailey fallacy. What I've seen is summarized as:

Troll: Very strong rage bait content/comment
Community user: Reasonably pissed response that this position is horseshit
Troll: Calls for civility even though they originally were like, proposing to genocide trans people, which is inhumane

This isn't a situation to foster. Let this kind of scum in and then they bring friends. Like roaches.

Not trying to split hairs with you, but we are talking about the same paragraph with different terms.

Lede: A clash at city hall today resulted in a rushed vote called during a late night session today, drawing criticisms from civil rights advocates.

Nut graf: Proposition HB (number) had been backed by state legislators from almost exclusively one political party. The bill would impact certain people in this specific way. About 150 protestors packed the gallery and spilled out into the foyer as the leader of the bill's opposition in the state house, state rep So-and-so from the name of county district, lead a 15 hour filibuster that was interrupted prematurely by the lieutenant governor calling a vote on the bill just before the special session ended.

This is an excellent question and is really up to us as a community to establish. The thought had occurred to me that there's room in our magazine for:

• politics news that is not US-based
• threads that are discussion only about political events
• responding to something clearly editorial (thinking here if a really cogent YouTuber has a video essay about political matters that isn't rage bait)

It's just a matter of community members saying what kind of content they want here and us establishing Badges (we can do that as mods, kind of like post flair).

I'll piggy back on your response here to add in that I would prefer that posters copy and paste the nut graf of the news story into the body of the post.

"Nut graf" is a journalism term for the paragraph that clearly delineates what the article is about. It's what makes the piece newsworthy. "The paragraph that explains the story in a nutshell." The nut graf usually appears in the first three grafs of any current events piece.

I think if this is included in the body text (willing to invite more than just this paragraph, but bare minimum this graf), then readers can determine if the larger piece is worth their time to read or important.

This one will be challenging, but we will consider it. Thanks for weighing in though. Even if this doesn't become a direct rule, it at least points to the kind of community we want to co-create.

Strange how all the details about what caused them to backtrack are totally missing. I think it goes without saying that they got mercilessly roasted on social media for this and maybe got some satirical submissions??

What you call recruitment, I call conquest.

Trollish Uber MAGAs just aren't happy with themselves until they've gotten a rise out of someone on the Internet.

To start, I would like to link this graphic to the community guidelines to illustrate where the cutoff is between heated debate and inappropriate bickering.