The Final Dealbreaker, for me, on r/PublicFreakout

20    08 Feb 2023 13:36 by u/interactive-art *

Somebody posted a movie spoiler on said subreddit. I politely asked her to please be more thoughtful and refrain from doing that sort of thing. This brought out a pack of normies who posted the usual, thought-free excuses for what is an inexcusable practice. When I replied to one of them, pointing out why what he had to say wasn't as reasonable as he seemed to think it was, I discovered that my comment was removed, almost immediately. This is what I wrote: ​ \--------------------------------------- censored comment begins \--------------------------------------- ​ >When does the statute of limitations start on spoilers start though? ​ It never does. Why would it? Think about what you're saying when you say that there is such a statute. You're saying that other people shouldn't be free to watch and fully enjoy and experience movies that came out before a particular date. That makes no sense. Why should they not have that freedom? What compellingly strong interest do you have in posting those spoilers that justifies the non-consensual denial of that freedom to others? How can you possibly justify the claim that this is a legitimate argument? What's the theory? That one can safely assume that everybody has seen a movie that's more than four years old? Do you know how many movies come out every year, and how many old movies there are? What you'd be assuming is not only not true for everybody, it isn't even true for anybody. Not even professional movie reviews, who watch movies for a living, will be able to find the time to see every movie that comes out. The fact that there's this much pushback against a call for common courtesy is, to be frank, worrisome. It says something about the mentality that I'm running into, and it's not something good. ​ \------------------------------------ censored comment ends \------------------------------------ ​ Goodness. Making the case for thinking about others, instead of just acting on a random whim. I had to be stopped, didn't I? This brought me to a tipping point, where I didn't just decide to give up on that subreddit, or even on Reddit, itself, but on social media, in general. There's so much asshole behavior, and so much enablement of the assholes, that it's just not worth it. This latest big, stupid thing, of posting spoilers just for the sake of posting spoilers, means that I have to choose between the enjoyment of movies and of literature created by people with actual, you know, talent, in exchange for what? As a participant, I'm being asked to give up an awful lot, just so that those who want to be awful can be indulged and protected from criticism, and what am I getting in return for that loss? How much first rate creative anything does one find on the Internet? Also, when one does post one's own content, how many hours does one spend chasing down content scrapers, sending one's DMCA takedown notices, and arguing with shady admins? To say nothing of the effort that goes into doing damage control on one's reputation, after some troll or another decides to create drama just for the lulz? What's the positive side to this experience? Don't let the recent cake day and the small profile fool you. I've been online for a while. I run communities of thousands of people on a few other sites. But I've hit the point where I have to say that this just doesn't make sense. Those in charge are so clearly on the side of the bad actors, and so eager to stick it to everybody else, that to do anything other than shut it all down and to clear out would make no sense. Respond to this as you wish. I doubt I'll ever see the replies. I'm done, I'm out of here. I've got better places to be, and better things to do.

17 comments

4 u/gunzanrozes 08 Feb 2023 16:38
You are a bit of a drama queen, aren't you?
-1 u/bear_in_exile 08 Feb 2023 18:21
Asks the troll.
1 u/[deleted] 08 Feb 2023 19:59
[removed]
2 u/couchfucker2 08 Feb 2023 19:27
I agree with you on the spoilers thing. I’m both interested in films and also terrible at seeing them when they come out, to the point where I missed some good 90s ones, even. I find most people do have a statute of limitations on it, especially if it’s over 10 years. I pretty much have given up the debate and just let people know I don’t wanna be spoiled or scroll away. The bigger point though is you’re discovering how Reddit doesn’t like, and suppresses opinions that aren’t popular on the sub, especially if you’re righteous about it. Even simple stuff. As a result, people who disagree with each other on even small things don’t ever get to share opinions or influence each other, and even further we don’t experience reality through the internet the same way. This sub is a rare exception actually, because Reddit censorship effects people of all kinds for all reasons, including those who are being moderated out of Reddit. As you’ll see you’ve already gotten a response from a red pilled dude who is likely on this sub because red pill content is moderated out of a lot of Reddit. I think it’s a great thing about this sub and posts like this at least we have the right to argue with each other or see content we might not like.
1 u/bear_in_exile 08 Feb 2023 22:43
>I find most people do have a statute of limitations on it, especially if it’s over 10 years. I find that most people don't, OFFLINE, and I think I know why. Offline, if one acts in the way that people routinely do on social media, one is likely to get the living crap beaten out of one, sooner or later and probably sooner. The old way of doing things might not be very nice, but I will say this much for it: it works, and so far, nothing else seems to. Right now, there's somebody over on r/PublicFreakout who replied to the complaint about spoilers by posting another spoiler. That's not somebody with another point of view. That's somebody who's having fun being a dick. That's a troll.
1 u/couchfucker2 08 Feb 2023 22:49
I’ll give you another example that is technically offline. All through film school my professors had no regard for spoilers and discuss third acts of movies uninhibited. And I also listen to two rewatch and analysis podcasts for shows that are over 10 years old, and the hosts mention the issue of spoilers but decided that they don’t believe in warning about spoilers early in their podcast and then never mentioned it again. So if you were to try and listen to each episode as you go through the show episodes, you’ll have details from later seasons spoiled without warning unless you happened to catch them wrangling with it in an early episode.
1 u/[deleted] * 10 Feb 2023 16:43
[deleted]
1 u/bear_in_exile * 10 Feb 2023 17:14
Yes, but at least in both cases, there was an understanding that movies or TV shows were going to be talked about. One can choose to not be a film student, and to avoid podcasts about shows. If we're, say, in a discussion of steak recipes, and somebody burst out with a plot synopsis for a movie, that's a lot different. What's insane is that online, on the social media sites, we're now being asked to accept that, as if it were something completely natural. Also, there is the idiotic argument, already seen here, of "it's your fault that you didn't see the movie in the theaters when it came out." I literally got to hear (OK, see) that one, recently, about a movie that came out in the mid 1980s. ​ ​ ​ >**Me, blinking as I stare at the screen in astonishment:** "What is my job, right now?" > >**Spoiler Apologist:** You don't have a job. You're a graduate student. You already told us that. > >**Me:** Very good. How old would that make me? > >**S.A.:** Somewhere in your 20s, I guess. > >**Me: W**hen was I born? Do the math. > >**S.A.:** Duh, what? > >**Me:** I wasn't born, yet, in the mid 1980s. How the (expletive deleted) would I have gone to see that movie in the theaters, at a time when my parents hadn't even met, yet? > >**S.A.:** (vague, meaningless boomer hand waving) > >**Me:** Was I supposed to have rented a time machine? How, exactly, am I supposed to have gone to the movies back then? > >**S.A.:** You seem very negative. You must be fun at parties. > >**Me:** (Pictures self holding baseball bat, looking at boomer, and yelling "batter up" as everybody in the room starts to scream and ... it gets kind of graphic after that) ​ ​ ​ I suppose that the lethal use of blunt force would be wrong, probably, but these guys seem to be going out of their way to make it tempting. This is an ongoing problem with social media: the trolls will do something that is plainly trolling, and then the normies will try to normalize it. What results is disgusting behavior.
1 u/bear_in_exile 10 Feb 2023 18:57
I see that your comment has dropped in karma by two since I thumbed it up two hours ago. I get the feeling that some old (ahem!) "friend" followed me in here, and is thumbing you down, just because you're talking to me. Sorry some people around here act that way. I wish there were a good way for me to get them to stop, but if there is one, I have no idea of what it would be,
1 u/couchfucker2 10 Feb 2023 19:34
No problem. I’m 100% used to it because my opinions don’t always land neatly into the echo chamber. That’s the case for a lot of us in the sub, we’re l here cause we get downvoted to oblivion sometimes.
2 u/kotarix 08 Feb 2023 21:33
You've had 4 years to watch the movie
1 u/bear_in_exile 08 Feb 2023 22:28
He literally just told you what's wrong with that argument, and your only response is to double down on it? What's wrong with you?
2 u/CptHammer_ 09 Feb 2023 23:28
It sucks that you were censored. Your opinion is yours and it wasn't mean or irrelevant. I disagree with your opinion when a spoiler has cultural significance especially if that significance is expressed with a mnemonic. It not only needs to be spoiled it would be mean to not spoil it otherwise you're practicing exclusionary behavior rather than inclusive behavior. If someone says red pill or blue pill, an entire culture knows this mnemonic. Of course every year there's going to be more people that don't know what it means because that's the nature of birth and mortality. To include people, you need to tell them what it means and even where the mnemonic came from.
1 u/grayscale_photos 01 Mar 2023 21:22
You seem to be having real difficulty understanding the concept of "consent." ​ >It not only needs to be spoiled it would be mean to not spoil it otherwise you're practicing exclusionary behavior rather than inclusive behavior. ​ Uh, huh. You're going to use one of those magical "sensitive" buzzwords in order to make an imposition look like something other than what it is. ​ >If someone says red pill or blue pill, an entire culture knows this mnemonic. Of course every year there's going to be more people that don't know what it means because that's the nature of birth and mortality. To include people, you need to tell them what it means and even where the mnemonic came from. ​ Those who want to know such things are free to ask. Your solution to this non-problem robs people of the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not they want that explanation. When you take freedom away from others, without their consent, and do so for a stated reason that doesn't bear examination, you're not being sensitive, you're being arrogant.
1 u/CTU 09 Feb 2023 04:22
There is a statute of limitation in regard to spoilers. You may disagree, but it does not change that fact. Should it still be a spoiler that Darth Vader is Luke's dad even though that spoiler is decades old already? That should fall under if you don't know it already you never had any interest in the subject in the first place so clearly it is no loss.
1 u/[deleted] 09 Feb 2023 07:28
[deleted]
1 u/grayscale_photos 01 Mar 2023 21:45
>There is a statute of limitation in regard to spoilers. You may disagree, but it does not change that fact. ​ That's not a fact. That's a philosophical position which you failed to support. ​ >That should fall under if you don't know it already you never had any interest in the subject in the first place so clearly it is no loss. ​ The OP just told you what's wrong with that argument. Your only response to his debunking of your talking point has been to double down on your talking point. I would argue that what you posted qualifies as a bad faith response. You're acting as if somebody did not reply to an argument, when in fact he did exactly that above.