You know how in some subs users can preface the post with [Serious] and then any comment in the thread that tries to inject jokes or puns gets deleted? Can we have an enforceable [Non-partisan] preface here please?

62  2018-01-21 by naturalproducer

52 comments

1  mastigia 2018-01-21

I kinda like the rough idea. Post it to modmail.

1  brock_lee 2018-01-21

Nonpartisan would just seem to intend to stifle differing opinions, vs Serious which just wants to keep out people who are not adding to the discussion

1  naturalproducer 2018-01-21

Calling someone a Hillary bot just because they criticize/expose Trump or vice versa is not adding to the discussion.

1  brock_lee 2018-01-21

That goes beyond "partisan".

1  naturalproducer 2018-01-21

Stating that Hillary would have been a shittier president in a thread that criticizes/exposes Trump or vice versa is not adding to the discussion either.

1  brock_lee 2018-01-21

That is what downvoting is for.

1  naturalproducer 2018-01-21

Naw, I prefer people not pissing in my stew. Putting a pin on my nose and cauterizing my tastebuds so I don't taste it is not a viable solution.

1  brock_lee 2018-01-21

Well, you seem intent on not allowing anything that disagrees with you, so good luck with that, Quixote.

1  naturalproducer 2018-01-21

Disagree with me, that's great, that's fine. Accuse me of being a Democrat because I expose/criticize a Republican? Naw, that doesn't add to the discussion. At all. It's called "a partisan shitting on the thread".

1  I_Hate_Sprog 2018-01-21

Democrat

1  bbhr 2018-01-21

No. Because then we would get posts like the one a half page down that spend 500 words calling Hillary/Democrats criminals but then says it's non-partisan.

1  MistahPudding 2018-01-21

Those posts would be against the rule and be removed

You're shit stirring, the non partisan tag would be specifically for shit like that

1  naturalproducer 2018-01-21

You are correct.

1  naturalproducer 2018-01-21

Partisan posts that apply the [Non-partisan] preface would be deleted. However, pointing out the corruption of Democrats does not make one a Republican. False dichotomy.

1  elj0h0 2018-01-21

Slippery slope. Just ignore the shit posts and obvious bias.

1  naturalproducer 2018-01-21

Wrong. The partisans are shitting all over threads and it needs to stop.

Example:

https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7rxyvb/what_is_the_trumprussia_collusion_psyop_trying_to/dt0i4ho/?context=3

1  14_16_22_BlisterBlue 2018-01-21

How can you post a thread about a GOP president and not expect partisan discussion?

1  naturalproducer 2018-01-21

You're promoting the false dichotomy that if a Republican politician being exposed, it's got to be one of those damn Democrats doing it.

1  UnbearablePenguin 2018-01-21

Maybe he didn't want a discussion and just wanted people to agree with him?

1  elj0h0 2018-01-21

How can you in good conscience advocate censorship?

1  naturalproducer 2018-01-21

Injecting partisanship at every turn is it's own type of censorship by diluting thoughtful posts and threads with this Trump vs. Hillary bullshit. This is not a Trump vs Hillary sub. Why don't you drop r/conspiracy and spend more time in r/politics if you're perspective is partisan?

1  elj0h0 2018-01-21

Any justification for censorship is still advocating censorship. Part of life is seeing and hearing things you don't want to. Downvote them, rebut them, ignore them. Censorship must be opposed in all forms.

1  naturalproducer 2018-01-21

Is that why you're always making the same effort to speak out against the 13 rules over in the sidebar or do you pick and choose which censorship you support and which you speak out against?

1  elj0h0 2018-01-21

I totally disagree with the requirement of a submission statement as well but that is not the topic at hand. Besides, while I disagree I at least understand why the mods wanted to implement it.

1  ShadowSeeker1499 2018-01-21

It's not censorship. It's just making sure people stay on topic.

How can you be against this?! The shills here are dominating the conversation! This will shut them out. They probably don't have a play for something like this.

1  Weirdbhamcall 2018-01-21

That's a politically related subject though

1  naturalproducer 2018-01-21

Yes, but it's not a Republican vs. Democrat related thread. Political conspiracies can be discussed without partisanship being trolled into the thread.

1  Weirdbhamcall 2018-01-21

The Russian collusion thing being tied into the article makes it inherently partisan since the investigation is directed towards the president and possibly implicates members of the GOP.

1  naturalproducer 2018-01-21

No.

If the Russian collusion thing was partisan, you would see Republicans left and right pointing out the obvious and documented Israel collusion. The whole Russian collusion farce is something that the media and the Republicans in DC are complicit in. If I was a Republican Congressman, for instance and I wanted to expose the Russian collusion as the farce that it IS, I would point out the collusion with Israel which is factual and can be easily proven. The idea that the Russian collusion idea is part of a real partisan battle is theatre for the Rubes. Please go read some Machiavelli.

1  Beanthatlifts 2018-01-21

Right? I think this is risky to do this. It's one step closer to censorship. As long as nothing more happens it might be alright, but what does non partisan really mean? Everyone has their own bias.

1  Quetzalcoatlwasright 2018-01-21

That’s censorship

1  tatertatertatertot 2018-01-21

This would just be used by people to post very partisan submissions/titles, put in the tag, and then use the rule to get people's comments to their submissions/title deleted.

Horrible idea.

1  naturalproducer 2018-01-21

That's just silly. That would be like prefacing a post with [Serious] and then posting a joke. The post would break the [Serious] rule and be deleted.

Stop stirring shit.

1  AreEternal 2018-01-21

The amount of people in the comments that are getting riled up about this makes me think it's a good idea.

1  russianbot01 2018-01-21

Right? You try it for 30 days and if it doesn't work you get rid of it. Simple. I'd like to see a 2 day ban when you post partisan crap in these thread also. Fuck all this partisan shit here.

1  starry7833378333 2018-01-21

There's an awful lot of political conspiracies though. Your free to read or post whatever you like. No ones forcing you to go to those threads.

1  ogrelin 2018-01-21

I don’t think anyone posting political stuff would ever use a “partisan” tag, but I do think we should have some for type of content, like: political, theory, spiritual, military and things along those lines. I’d get behind that for sure.

1  ahackercalled4chan 2018-01-21

can we just ban twitter links instead? just doing that would help immensely.

1  naturalproducer 2018-01-21

BTW, the source on the Paddock character's Mandalay Bay receipt goes no deeper than Twitter.

1  exkreations 2018-01-21

Like most non-partisan posts that get slammed to 50% on this sub For totally unknown reasons, I am in support of this idea.

1  stupidfuckingtroll 2018-01-21

Hear hear! It is for this very reason that I’ve felt obligated to counter the incredibly strong pro-Trump narrative being pushed throughout this sub. I suspect others have felt the same and that is the reason for what some have referred to as an uptick in shill activity.

1  joseph177 2018-01-21

Actually a good idea.

1  donaldtroll 2018-01-21

Good luck with that, since it will spill over into all other issues (dunno if you noticed but climate change is apparently a partisan issue too now, for instance)

The lefties just dont want to talk with the righties about ANYTHING (and vice versa)

It is quite comical to someone not from USA

1  naturalproducer 2018-01-21

You just hit the nail on the head.

Try to have a discussion about climate change and along come the partisan trolling and the discussion gets hijacked into a clusterfuck of partisan bickering.

Would be nice to nip that in the bud so an actual discussion could occur.

1  VisionaryPrism 2018-01-21

Censorship in any form, like others have said, is a slippery slope. There should be no censorship on this sub.

1  naturalproducer 2018-01-21

Oh is that why your always making the same effort to speak against rules 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 & 13 over in the sidebar?

1  expletivdeleted 2018-01-21

this seems like the start of maybe a good idea. try on a temp basis? hash it out with the community like the submission statement thing?

the submission statement requirement has been a big plus.

1  naturalproducer 2018-01-21

I agree on both counts.

1  Big_fat_happy_baby 2018-01-21

Send it to the mods, I think this is a good idea. Reading all the people with bullshit reasons against this makes me think some people(paid shills) may not be very happy with this. This is /r/conspiracy , partisan politics designed to divide and conquer should have no place where more intelligent and informed discussions are taking place. People who are aware of standard government narrative pushing tactics, TPTB and similar stuff should not have to swim through a puddle of shit in order to have a decent conversation.

Is this censorship ? bullshit. You can still post all the partisan shit you want in another post. just like you can joke all you want outside [Serious] post in /r/AskReddit

1  naturalproducer 2018-01-21

BINGO!

1  ShadowSeeker1499 2018-01-21

Fuck me but this is a good idea.

1  RebelCombatant 2018-01-21

I really like this idea. I hope the mods hear you out. A logical well thought-out solution to a problem that completely derails constructive conversation.

1  naturalproducer 2018-01-21

Wrong. The partisans are shitting all over threads and it needs to stop.

Example:

https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7rxyvb/what_is_the_trumprussia_collusion_psyop_trying_to/dt0i4ho/?context=3

1  naturalproducer 2018-01-21

You're promoting the false dichotomy that if a Republican politician being exposed, it's got to be one of those damn Democrats doing it.

1  UnbearablePenguin 2018-01-21

Maybe he didn't want a discussion and just wanted people to agree with him?

1  brock_lee 2018-01-21

Well, you seem intent on not allowing anything that disagrees with you, so good luck with that, Quixote.

1  naturalproducer 2018-01-21

BTW, the source on the Paddock character's Mandalay Bay receipt goes no deeper than Twitter.

1  Beanthatlifts 2018-01-21

Right? I think this is risky to do this. It's one step closer to censorship. As long as nothing more happens it might be alright, but what does non partisan really mean? Everyone has their own bias.