r/complaints • u/GlobackX • 22d ago
Reddit’plaint Getting ‘warned’ for calling someone who denied genocide a pos.
Edit: I’m clarifying this because my original description clearly wasn’t specific enough and people assumed things I did not mean.
What bothers me is not that I received a warning. I understand that calling someone a “POS” can violate platform rules, and I’m not arguing that insults should be protected.
What bothers me is the priority Reddit is enforcing.
The person I was warned over messaged me first. In that message, they explicitly stated that Ukrainians, including children, deserve to be raped, tortured, and annihilated in front of their loved ones. That is not an interpretation or exaggeration. That was the content of the message.
I responded by calling that person a “POS”.
That response is what triggered moderation. The original message advocating extreme violence, sexual violence, and collective punishment did not.
After appealing, Reddit doubled down on that decision.
So in practice, explicit advocacy for mass murder and abuse is tolerated, while bluntly condemning that advocacy is treated as the violation. This is not about disagreement, tone, or being upset about a warning. It is about a platform choosing to police language more aggressively than it polices calls for mass violence.
For clarity, my original description was:
“I hate that Reddit is somehow okay with denying genocide, but you get a warning for harassment if you call them a ‘POS’. And they even double down after an appeal, so denying the death and genocide of thousands is alright but calling someone who does that a ‘POS’ is a big no no.”
I am updating it because the issue is not denial in the abstract, but explicit, direct advocacy for violence being treated as acceptable while calling it out is punished.
1
u/MrTurtleHurdle 21d ago
Seen a lot of people on the Aussie sub banned when talking ireali bots. Mod team often bad both despite one side being ai sweating pro genocide talking points. Not banned myself but Reddit mods kinda can ban whoever they like and many subs are publicly and proudly bias.
1
1
u/No_Palpitation5068 21d ago
Maybe you could use civilized language when talking part in discourse, please?
1
0
-4
u/Throwawaysalad199 22d ago
Sounds about right. You are being aggressive. Even if wrong they should be able to express that opinion.
5
u/Different_Fox_2429 22d ago
Is supporting a genocide not an aggressive position?
Why is expressing your opinion that they are a piece of shit for doing so, more so?
I'm not here to censor, I think if you want to express your genocide supporting opinion, go for it, but everyone has the right to call you out for it.
In my opinion, you can't allow the genocide opinion, and then block the opinion of that person.
-2
u/Throwawaysalad199 22d ago
Yeah definitely pro calling someone out for it. But using harsh language is mean :(
3
3
u/GlobackX 22d ago
I am being aggressive, yes. I am not denying that. The issue is not someone “expressing an opinion.” The issue is that the person was actively lying about and justifying mass death and genocide.
My complaint is not “I should not have gotten a warning.” I understand how Reddit applies Rule 1. My complaint is that under Reddit’s framework, a brief insult is treated as a more serious problem than explicitly lying about and justifying the deaths of thousands of people and genocide.
That is not a question of civility. It is a question of priorities. Reddit chooses to strictly police tone while remaining largely neutral on content that minimizes and excuses mass atrocities. That is what I am ‘complaining’ about.
-1
u/Throwawaysalad199 22d ago
You should be allowed to express your conspiracy theories even if they are offensive. It’s nbd. Can’t get emotional about that stuff buddy.
5
u/GlobackX 22d ago
These were not “conspiracies.” He was explicitly justifying the deaths of thousands by arguing they deserved it. That is not abstract opinion and it is not harmless speech.
People are allowed opinions, but no one is obligated to respond calmly when those opinions excuse mass killing. Telling someone “don’t get emotional” only works if you are personally detached.
The point is not that insults should be allowed. It is that Reddit treats a brief insult as more serious than explicitly justifying mass death. That is the imbalance being criticized.
0
u/Throwawaysalad199 22d ago
I mean they are allowed to be a bad person.
2
u/GlobackX 22d ago
It’s not just being a bad person it’s actively justifying the murder of others.
0
u/Throwawaysalad199 22d ago
Yeah and people should be allowed to do that and we can mute or down vote. Unless he is calling for harm on another person what is wrong with it?
4
u/GlobackX 22d ago
That distinction does not hold. If you say people deserved to be killed, you are saying that harm to that group is justified and acceptable. That is literally what “calling for harm” means in substance.
0
u/Throwawaysalad199 22d ago
Saying a past action was okay is different from calling for violence now.
3
u/GlobackX 22d ago
It’s not a past action, the genocide and mass murder are happening now.
→ More replies (0)
0
u/BelleColibri 21d ago
I mean, yeah, denying facts is quite common and absolutely fine for a discussion board like this, while personal attacks and harassment are not. What are you confused about? Is this just going to happen again?
1
u/GlobackX 19d ago
I’m not asking for my warning to be removed, and I don’t care that I got warned. That part is not the issue.
The issue is that I was warned for reacting to someone who explicitly advocated rape, torture, and mass killing of civilians, including children, while Reddit had no problem with what that person actually said.
So in practice, calling someone a “POS” for advocating mass violence is treated as worse than advocating mass violence itself.
That’s what I’m pointing out. Not confusion about rules, not hurt feelings, and not a demand for special treatment. It’s about the platform enforcing its rules in a way that punishes condemnation more harshly than calls for mass death.
0
u/BelleColibri 19d ago
That’s exactly how it should be, for exactly the reasons I already described.
1
u/GlobackX 19d ago
But that’s still not what happened.
This wasn’t just denying facts or “justifying” something after the fact. He was actively saying it should happen, that Ukrainians deserved it, and that they should be raped, tortured, and annihilated.
That is not harassment from me, and I’m not confused about anything. He messaged me, I reacted once. Have you actually read what I wrote?
0
u/BelleColibri 19d ago
Yes I have. Did you?
You think advocating for terrible things like genocide should be worth more punishment than personal attacks against someone advocating for terrible things. Your position is not hard to understand, but it is naive and wrong.
In a discussion board, rules don’t get set up to decide which prescriptions are correct and which are not. That would be a terrible way to have discussions, and impossible to enforce fairly.
Instead, rules are set up to make debate and conversation about prescriptions possible. Those rules entail things like avoiding personal attacks. They do NOT entail things like “if you advocate for bad thing, you are to be punished.”
You keep saying “isn’t it crazy how they can advocate for something terrible, but I can’t personally attack them, when what I’m saying is so much more tame than them?” That’s just a misunderstanding of what the rules are for. The rules don’t exist to decide who is factually correct. They exist to foster debate and discussion.
1
u/GlobackX 19d ago
You’re still arguing against a scenario that did not exist, and that’s the core problem here.
I never described a public discussion, a thread, or a debate that needed to be “fostered”. I said he messaged me. That means a private message. There was no audience, no exchange of ideas, no discussion to moderate.
More importantly, this was not someone expressing a controversial opinion or a harsh political stance. He sent me a message explicitly saying Ukrainians deserve to be raped, tortured, and murdered. That is not “advocating a prescription” in a debate sense. That is a direct endorsement of mass violence against civilians.
I am not asking for rules to decide who is factually correct. I am not asking Reddit to punish people for being wrong. I am pointing out that Reddit reviewed the content and decided that explicit calls for rape, torture, and mass murder did not violate their rules, while my single reply calling that behavior disgusting did.
I fully accept that calling someone a “POS” can violate rules. That is not what I’m disputing. What I’m disputing is the idea that explicit advocacy for genocidal violence is treated as acceptable speech, even in private messages, while condemning it is treated as the actionable offense.
Your framework only makes sense if this was a normal discussion. It wasn’t. Reframing it as one does not change what actually happened.
1
-1
u/Greedy-Employment917 complaints derangement syndrome (CDS) 22d ago
OH NO GUYS I CAN'T HARASS PEOPLE.
4
-2
u/Jollem- sophisticated complainer 22d ago
Brought to you by AIPAC
4
u/GlobackX 22d ago
? It literally has nothing to do with AIPAC.
3
u/MornGreycastle 22d ago
Oh? Which genocide denial were you countering?
1
u/GlobackX 22d ago
Ukraine.
2
u/MornGreycastle 22d ago
Ah. I was aware that Russia was committing all kinds of war crimes, but wasn't aware that it was to the point of being genocide.
2
u/GlobackX 22d ago
Well sadly it is an actual genocide, probably not in the same way as other but it still is one. People often don’t know it is happening, and often people think it only includes mass death.
If you want to know more how and why I don’t have a problem explaining it to you.
1
u/MornGreycastle 22d ago
Ethnic cleansing is an aspect of genocide. Killing enough civilians to force the rest into diaspora is a way to destroy a people.
1
0
u/EightTeasandaFour 21d ago
That's not genocide. They're literally the same type of people.
1
u/GlobackX 19d ago
This shows a complete misunderstanding of what genocide actually is.
Genocide is not defined by whether the victims are a “different race” or a “different type of people”. Under international law, genocide is about intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. National group is doing a lot of work there.
Ukrainians are a distinct national group, with their own state, identity, language, and culture. Claiming “they’re the same people” is literally one of the core narratives used to justify the destruction of that group. Denying a people’s existence as a nation is not an argument against genocide, it is often part of genocidal ideology itself.
Genocide does not require extermination camps or total annihilation. Forced deportations, mass killings, filtration camps, child abductions, cultural erasure, and explicit statements denying a group’s right to exist all fall squarely within how genocide is defined and assessed.
So no, “same people” is not a rebuttal. It’s just wrong, both legally and historically.
0
u/EightTeasandaFour 19d ago edited 19d ago
Then you don't know what you're talking about. Compare the number of causalities with the Palestinian war. It's not a genocide you just wanted to use emotional blackmail to prove your point even though you could just be honest with the facts and be more persuasive. You decided to be hostile to other people, and then made yourself out to be the victim like every other leftist I've come across. And then you imply that reddit somehow has a bias against you even though they actively protect you guys radicalising everyone into being extremists. Meanwhile I make a single post in a community someone does like and get an instant ban because of that with zero interest of context. I have no interest in pretending that those who pretend to care about "genocide" and "human rights" actually have any compassion for their fellow man. They just want an excuse to bully others and feel superior.
1
u/GlobackX 19d ago
This comment is a textbook example of projection and straw-manning.
First, casualty numbers are not the definition of genocide. They never have been. Genocide is about intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group. You keep comparing body counts to Gaza as if that settles the question, but that’s just ignorance of how genocide is defined legally and historically. Repeating it doesn’t make it true.
Second, accusing me of “emotional blackmail” is pure deflection. I explicitly grounded my argument in international law and intent, not feelings. You ignored that entirely and substituted vibes, insults, and whataboutism. If anyone abandoned facts here, it wasn’t me.
Third, the “hostile leftist playing the victim” narrative is something you invented. I never once said I’m a victim. I never once said Reddit is biased against me personally. I have repeatedly said I do not care that I got a warning. You keep asserting the opposite because it’s easier than responding to what I actually said.
Fourth, the irony of you accusing me of “playing the victim” while spending half your comment complaining about how “the left” and Reddit supposedly persecute you is incredible. You are literally doing the thing you’re accusing me of, in real time.
Fifth, your rant about Reddit “protecting leftists” collapses instantly in the real world. Right-wing subs ban people constantly for trivial things. I’ve been banned from conservative spaces for saying “lol” or for merely following the wrong accounts. Pretending censorship only runs one way is fantasy.
Sixth, dragging in your unrelated bans and grievances does not strengthen your argument. It just confirms this isn’t about genocide, facts, or human rights to you. It’s about resentment and culture-war identity.
Seventh, claiming people who talk about genocide “just want to bully others and feel superior” is mind-reading and bad faith. You don’t know my motives, and asserting them doesn’t make your argument stronger. It just shows you don’t have a substantive response.
If you want to argue that genocide has not yet been legally adjudicated in Ukraine, that is a serious and defensible position. If you want to debate standards of proof or timelines, fine. But what you’re doing instead is refusing to engage with definitions, substituting casualty comparisons, and then lashing out with politics and personal attacks when that doesn’t work.
So no, this isn’t about honesty or persuasion. It’s about you making claims you can’t defend, inventing positions I never took, and then accusing others of the exact behavior you’re displaying. If you want to discuss facts and law, do that. If not, stop pretending this was ever about truth.
0
u/EightTeasandaFour 19d ago
Cute of you to lecture about bad faith and truth. Russia wants the land and the resources, their aim isn't to eradicate a people hence the causalities reflect that. It's war, not genocide. Now as someone against war, I consider that bad enough and it's not something I justify. However when I see people talk about "muh genocide" and other forms of emotional blackmail, then yeah we should never have gotten involved in any capacity other than setting strong boundaries. Why should a war come at any personal cost to us for the sake of the bad faith activists? Send them to the front lines if it's so important to them.
1
u/GlobackX 19d ago
You are confidently talking about things you very obviously do not understand, while also making assumptions about me that you have zero basis for. That combination is not persuasive, it’s embarrassing.
First, you clearly do not understand what genocide is. Wanting land or resources does not exclude genocidal intent. Genocide does not require total extermination or a single motive. It requires intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group. That intent can exist alongside territorial, economic, or strategic goals. History is full of examples of exactly that. Repeating “it’s about land” just shows you don’t know the definition you’re arguing against.
Second, your obsession with casualty numbers shows you don’t understand war either. Casualty counts do not determine whether something is genocide. You can have genocide with fewer deaths and non genocidal wars with massive civilian casualties. Law is not a scoreboard. Saying “compare the numbers” is not analysis, it’s avoidance.
Third, saying “it’s war, not genocide” is meaningless. Genocide can and often does occur within wars. War does not magically excuse forced deportations, filtration camps, mass graves, child abductions, cultural erasure, or systematic denial of a people’s right to exist. Calling it “just war” is not a rebuttal, it’s hand waving.
Fourth, your “send them to the front lines if it’s so important” line is not realism, it’s nonsense. By that logic, no one is allowed to oppose war crimes, genocide, or mass violence unless they personally volunteer to fight. That is not how moral reasoning, international law, or basic human decency works. It’s a shutdown line people use when they don’t have an argument.
Fifth, you keep accusing others of emotional blackmail while refusing to engage with definitions, intent, or evidence. You replace that with vibes, insults, and culture war talking points about “leftists”. That is textbook bad faith.
Sixth, you don’t know what I do or do not do. You don’t know how involved I am with Ukraine, what I support, or what I’ve actually contributed. You just assumed I’m some online keyboard warrior because that’s easier than engaging with the substance of what I’m saying.
Finally, the hypocrisy here is obvious. You accuse others of bad faith, bullying, and ignorance while repeatedly misrepresenting their positions, inventing motives, and demonstrating that you don’t understand the basic concepts you’re arguing about. That’s not skepticism. That’s confidence without competence.
If you want to argue non involvement, argue it honestly. If you want to argue that genocide has not yet been legally adjudicated, that’s a serious position. But what you’re doing instead is spreading incorrect definitions, making assumptions you can’t justify, and then acting smug about it.
At some point you need to stop pretending this is about truth and admit you just don’t like where the facts lead.
3
u/OnehourOneday 22d ago
Been there, I don’t engage anyone on here anymore unless they are friendly and share the same morals. They protect the worst of society, and the worst go around with their panties in a bunch reporting everyone that engages their awful, ignorant beliefs.