do not delete this, it is a mod comment
The rule about saying something racist, bigoted, or sexist is strictly enforced here. If you say anything that is insulting someone based on their personal characteristics - even if they are a “LinkedIn lunatic” - that is not welcome here.
This sub is about making fun of the corporate grind and culture.
It is not a sub for stereotyping ethnic groups. It is not a sub for mocking men or (very commonly) women. It is not a sub for insulting minority groups because of their gender identity, orientation, or religion, or any other personal characteristic
Specifically regarding the amount of negative content we get about women, as that is by far the biggest issue we need to moderate:
- insinuating they need a porn career
- insulting their look and appearance and/making sexualized comments
- suggesting they are doing something to seek a man’s affection or attention
- this includes photos/selfies of women that show off their curves (cleavage, ass, etc) as a primary focal point of the post you are highlighting - for example, a shitty GPT paragraph about Business Stuff as an excuse to show a selfie is not enough to warrant a post here.
Are all a quick way to a long or permanent ban here. I can and will look through post histories in this and other sub - mod bypass the hide feature Reddit permits - to contextualize your comment as a slip of the tongue or pattern of behavior. This is not hard or complex. I am not joking about this. If you cannot handle this, go to another sub - you are not welcome here.
To summarize:
- are you making fun of someone for their adherence and glorifying the corporate grind? If yes, post/comment.
- are you making fun or commenting about someone for what their body looks like, their place of origin, religious identity (general exception: worship of money/technocrats), sexualizing them in any way or really in any way insulting them for their membership in a protected class (US definition; google it)? If yes, don’t post if you want to participate in the sub in the future.
If you are unable or unwilling to follow these rules:
- Unsubscribe from the sub
- Unfollow the sub on your feed so Reddit doesn’t suggest it to you in the future.
Why does a mod need to add "Don't delete this, it's a mod post". Aren't you guys the ones that delete shit? Just curious.
I do agree with what you're saying though.
One of our rules is having a LinkedIn screenshot so posts that lack it get swept up by accident when they pop up in the queue.
Ah. Makes sense.
[deleted]
You think the mods all sit around in a circular table in real life? Sir this isn't a circlejerk subreddit
Lol yes another mod that's not OP can delete this.
Curious. Agree?
It was super great that the top comment in that post was making fun of her for being Jewish as well. 👍
Thanks for dealing with that shit.
I do find it weird to make your religion a part of your job title if it isn’t intrinsically linked to your work.
I hope that’s what it was about.
A guy in my company posts his sermons on LinkedIn. It’s pretty wild.
Edit:He also posted a rant on abortions being bad but he and his girlfriend had one when they were younger. He fails to realize that probably allowed him to be more successful since he didn’t have a kid in high school. H
A reminder that being Jewish isnt just a religion, but is also more broadly cultural & ethnic in origin. I knew a girl in college who was a self described atheist, but culturally Jewish because she liked the community and social practices. It's more common than you'd think.
While you're right that there are cultural and ethnic components to Jewishness, "Judaism" refers specifically to the set of religious beliefs. Your atheist friend was no less Jewish for not believing in Judaism.
Yes, that is in fact my point.
Then you should edit your comment to say "Being Jewish is more than just a religion", rather than using Judaism, because Judaism is, in fact, just a religion.
Eh fair enough
Edit: holy shit editing that on mobile was a nightmare
Get over it. Pretend it isn’t there if you need to.
Oh, I am, sorry if that came across wrong. I get that I have some hangups on religion as a whole, but some of the comments on her being specifically Jewish were… not good, let’s put it that way.
Wait, are you upset that they... are upset about religious bigotry? The point of the post you made? I think one of us misread something.
I’m telling them to get over the fact some people insert their religious or cultural identity into their LinkedIn byline
If someone wants to say they are - as an example - a jewish/american/gay/whatever widget producer, that’s their prerogative.
It’s an awkward modifier in a lot of situations but then we have people posting gospel quotes or whatever show up here and turns out they work in a religious institute and contextually it makes sense why they are posting religious content.
And I absolutely agree! But from an outside perspective reading your comment, it looks at though you are telling the OP of this thread to get over the comments on Reddit deriding her. Which is why you're getting downvotes.
Probably, yeah.
Lmao lol that’s not how this works.
Yes, it is.
He says to the person who literally decides how this works…
[removed]
Your post on r/LinkedInLunatics has been removed. We remove posts and comments for a variety of reasons, in accordance with our rules and Reddit standards. Thank you, the r/LinkedInLunatics mod team
[removed]
I’m sorry you confused this for a negotiation.
These rules are a condition of continued participation in the sub. Take it or leave it.
Bless you.
I think there’s a missing distinction getting flattened here. Larry David–style satire exists precisely because people sometimes perform their identity in exaggerated, self-aware ways especially in elite, media, or corporate spaces and then act shocked when that performance becomes part of the conversation.
To be clear: antisemitic tropes, slurs, or the kind of garbage someone like Puka Nacua was repeating are heinous and should be banned outright. No argument there. And yes, explicitly conflating Judaism with Zionism or Israel “she’s Jewis so she must support X” is lazy, harmful, and ban-worthy.
But satire isn’t the same thing as bigotry. If someone deliberately foregrounds any identity religion, politics, wellness ideology, hustle culture, whatever as part of their professional brand, it’s reasonable to satirize that choice and the incentives behind it. That’s about behavior in a corporate attention economy, not about protected classes.
The line should be: are we mocking systems, incentives, and self-branding theatrics, or are we mocking immutable traits? Once you collapse those, you lose the ability to critique anything honestly and end up protecting the grind culture itself by redirecting everything into identity policing.
EDIT to add: Okay she was actually promoting zionism on her website .... If someone is explicitly promoting Zionism as part of their professional brand or website, then criticism or satire of that political ideology is fair game. Zionism is a political project, not an immutable identity, and it’s not antisemitism to critique it any more than it’s anti-Christian to critique Christian nationalism.
Where the line should be firm and I agree with the mods there is jumping from “this person promotes Zionism” to “this person is Jewish so X.” That’s the conflation that turns political critique into bigotry and it deserves a ban.
But flattening everything into “don’t mention it at all” creates a different problem: it shields ideological branding inside corporate culture from scrutiny as long as it’s wrapped in identity language. If someone voluntarily injects a political ideology into their professional persona, that’s a choice, and choices are critique-able.
The distinction isn’t subtle: attack ideology and incentives, not ethnicity or religion. Losing that distinction doesn’t reduce harm it just makes honest critique impossible and lets the branding strategy win by default.
That was quite the wall of text. There was no indication that the comment was Larry David-style satire, and attacking someone for being Jewish doesn't become retroactively justified if you can later prove they said or did something Zionist, which is how that thread went down.
It’s a well written, articulate, and reasoned opinion and you should read it and not flippantly dismiss it as a wall of text.
It is well written, articulate, inconsistent, and poorly reasoned cherry picking.
Was that all a Larry David joke, or is it an important part of a discussion about whether this woman is a Zionist and therefore fair game for antisemitism? What about the responders who clearly were not in on that joke? What about the fact that the original comment gave no indication they were aware of the joke? What about the fact that people dug up her statements in support of Zionism later in the thread to retroactively justify making fun of her for saying she was Jewish?
It comes across as just so much post hoc rationalization for bashing a member of a minority that is literally being targeted for death because she said she was proud. That's sick.
Im not getting into the individual merits of any specific post/comment. I appreciate their comment as it relates to how people should evaluate posts/comments in general.
You know? I'm not really interested in arguing with you about this, since I appreciate your actions here a great deal and am very thankful mods stepped in on that post.
We disagree, but I'm dropping this now.
Thank you.
i literally commented on it with the larry david scene...someone later replied with https://imgur.com/a/1TaCS6S
Things do not become a Larry David reference because you respond to them with a video of Larry David. That is not how the principle of cause and effect works. Sorry.
I’m not saying a Larry David clip retroactively justifies anything. My point is narrower: critique should track what’s being critiqued.
If a comment is attacking someone for being Jewish, that’s obviously out of bounds and I’m not defending it. If a comment is criticizing or satirizing a political ideology someone is openly promoting as part of their professional brand, that’s a different category entirely and should be evaluated on those grounds.
Where things broke down in that thread is those two being collapsed into one. Once that happens, there’s no way to distinguish bad-faith bigotry from legitimate critique of ideological self-branding inside corporate culture. That’s the distinction I was trying to articulate — not excuse the former.
Please stop going down this rabbit hole.
Hi. We are not ever going to see eye to eye on this, I feel strongly that your argument is the one in bad faith, and it is likely that neither of us should further engage because a mod has made it clear they would like this conversation to be over.
[removed]
I thought that was an Always Sunny reference.
Awesome clarification. Really nice to see. Make fun of what someone does, not what someone is.
Exactly! Hate everyone unanimously and not because of their identity!
Well the purpose of the sub is to make fun of people acting like corporate shills, not people just existing.
Sometimes there is disagreement about what someone is versus what someone does or chooses to be. It's the root of a lot of prejudice in the world right now, especially against LGBTQ people.
Lol this comment makes no sense. You think someone is a religion vs. chooses to be in a religion?
Most people in a religion never chose to join it
Of course they did.
If you're raised from birth as a Catholic, at what point did you decide to be Catholic?
At the point where you learn that other religions exist, and also that some peole practice no religion at all, and decided that none of those options were right for you and you continued being Catholic.
So if you're raised from birth as an American, did you "choose" to continue to be one when you discovered other countries exist but "none of those options were right for you"?
Friend I’m asking you politely to give this a rest here.
You got it, hoss
...you have to be joking, right? You can't possibly be equating living in a country and practicing a religion. You're either trolling, or incredibly dense.
Omfg, stop with this high-and-mighty attitude 😂 you're both on reddit, lol; neither of you is above the other.
When you decide you believe it. Are you being serious?
Oh, you're a radiological containment vessel. My bad, I didn't realize
Deciding to be Catholic is actually an extremely important part of being raised Catholic. Kids are usually given the Sacrament of Confirmation at the age of 13-15.
How that works is the kids are enrolled in a study program at their church or Catholic school. The course is usually an hour each week for a few months, where they learn about all of the core beliefs of their faith, what those beliefs mean, where they came from, and how they can/should incorporate those beliefs into their everyday lives as adults.
Every diocese/parish schedules one day each year to do a Confirmation Service for everyone in that area all together, because a Bishop has to be there to do it and those guys are really busy. What basically happens is that each person individually is asked to confirm that they understand the tenets of their faith, that they truly believe in them fully, and that they are choosing freely to become a full member of the Catholic Church. They all say yes, they are anointed with holy oil, they get a new middle name, and AMEN!
That is the point when you have decided to be Catholic.
I was noticing an uncomfortable uptick in people making comments about people from India. I’m hoping that trend will die out soon.
There's an insane amount of indian hate on reddit these days in general. It's super uncomfortable to be on some random subreddit and suddenly see some obvious ragebait where nearly every comment is some degree of racist.
I keep getting recommended conservative Canadian subs which are basically all calling Indian immigrants parasites but they never directly say it and it's pretty infuriating tbh because they seem to know exactly how far to push before they're bannable
Not just Reddit, I see it in real life
Holy shit any time an Indian person does anything, some idiot thinks it's the peak of comedy to say "do not redeem"
Am I missing something? What does 'do not redeem' mean in this context?
There was this audio that went viral a while ago, of a scam call, where apparently an Indian scam artist reacted rather spiritedly after the target (I don't remember if this was a bait call or not) claimed they had already redeemed the gift cards they'd purchased.
The scam artist was recorded yelling "Do not redeem!", and yeah, it pretty much got bundled together with the Indian call center scammer stereotypes.
it's a famous clip from Kitboga, who has made content around wasting the time of scammers and upsetting them for probably nearly a decade now. He has an entire virtual/simulated PC setup that allows him to generate fake gift cards for the scammers to "steal", only to redeem these gift cards on his own simulated account. Redeeming the card makes that money inaccessible to the scammer - they want you to send the redemption code to them. I think for this particular clip Kitboga had been on the call with the scammer for like four hours and the guy was losing it, and when he redeemed the last code, the scammer absolutely crashed out.
Personally I think it's a net neutral/positive to waste the time of these scammers because it's less time they can spend scamming an actual elderly person out of their money. But of course people will take a famous clip like that and make racist jokes about it. smh
At the very least. It's kinda incredible, but he's kept some of them on the hook for an entire calendar year.
Also Kitboga (or Josh) makes it very clear not to assume nationality. I’m a regular viewer of his twitch streams and if anyone starts making jokes or assumptions about the scammer’s nationality/ethnicity/location the comment is deleted and the person is given a warning. If they continue to break the rules around this, they’re timed out or banned.
There’s a Twitch command that people can use that links to a clip of him explaining why he does not want people making those assumptions. He only brings up location when he has strong evidence of where a scammer or the company they work for is located. That can become relevant if a scammer claims their company is located somewhere like LA and Josh figures out that it’s located somewhere else, or something similar to that.
Then he might call them out for it and it usually catches the scammer off guard. Some get spooked and will hang up. Some will double down. It makes for some very funny moments. I think he would be very disappointed to know the whole “do not redeem” joke is being used in that way. I don’t even remember if it was ever confirmed that the “do not redeem” guy is from India or if people just assumed that.
People shouldn’t make assumptions if they do not know and even if the “do not redeem” guy was confirmed to be from India, people certainly shouldn’t be using that as a generalization. That’s literally the opposite of what Kitboga has been trying to teach his audience.
I got you...
The "do not redeem" meme originated from videos by the YouTube streamer Kitboga, who is known for scambaiting. In these videos, Kitboga pretends to be a scam victim and intentionally "redeems" gift cards in front of the scammers, causing them to become extremely frustrated and angry.
Ahhhhhhh.
Wow yeah thank you but that's an incredibly racist stretch, goddamn.
The "how can she slap" is much worse because it's more popular, ugh. It's not just some idiot because these comments are also some of the top comments, because many people think it's "funny".
Flag it as you see it and we will bag it
Surely this has nothing to do with the sudden rise in anger toward H1B visas for some reason, totally not race-based or encouraged by public officials
Mostly I’ve seen it in the context of stereotyping them as tech support scammers (and a certain YouTuber who seemed to always make a point of mentioning when they were from India.)
It’s more the toxic sexism I see in the hundreds of male leaning Indian subs. It’s not even attempting to be subtle. That’s not a uniquely Indian problem, but there’s no moderation in these subs typically, so it goes unchallenged. Those posters then take that energy into subs like this and then get surprised at the reaction.
But is calling out groups that tend to be more biased on Reddit, biased in itself? Is calling out domestic incels bias? I’m not saying that to be provocative. It just seems like the sort of thing that has unintended consequences with brigading and such. The paradox of tolerance and all that…
This comment thread is about this subreddit having racist comments on posts about people from india.
And you uno-reverse carded it with a “actually they’re the ones coming in here with their sexism”, and mentioned different subreddits which nobody else in this thread brought up.
I can’t interpret your words differently from a way to justify the aforementioned racist comments.
All this to justify bad comments towards a linked post from an indian person (who may or may not even use reddit in the first place, and has nothing to do with the “intolerance” you suggested).
I’d like to point out I’ve seen this behavior in this sub. It’s not something that I’m saying only exists elsewhere. I’ve literally had interactions where someone says something along the lines of “it’s women who are always the problem. Men are hard workers and women are always drama.” You look at the profile and surprise they contribute to a lot of subs where that behavior is tolerated.
I’m not trying to be cute or reverse uno card anything. I’m saying this is a subject that requires nuance. Zero tolerance policies can have unintended consequences where people who hold biases get louder because calling them out also becomes an issue that is held on an even playing field as bias itself.
I don’t want anyone to be treated poorly based on their identity. But also, I don’t want people to have no accountability based on their identity.
And I’m not the only one to note this rise in incels. Female Indian subs also note the issue is a growing problem. Should those women not be allowed to talk about it? What if those women post in this sub and talk about their lived experiences? Do we assume they are not Indian and ban them. What about domestic incels? Are they a protected groups?
You want to make a complex issue simple, I get it. But the world isn’t that simple and sometimes we socialize harmful biases on a societal level. Not acknowledging that doesn’t make that not the case. It means you want to ignore it.
What I’m not doing is saying this in an innate trait of anyone. Every Indian person I’ve met in person has been a truly decent person. What I am saying is that it appears some younger Indian men are either being radicalized online or feel compelled to spread radical beliefs online, like many American men are through pipelines like Andrew Tate. I don’t think calling that out should be forboden any more than calling out that the KKK hates minorities.
Also, I didn’t see the original post in question and am not sure I want to if this is the reaction. That said, it sounds like an overcorrection that may lead to even more bias.
There is no singular post that led to this. We’ve been seeing an uptick of offensive content all week and in the weeks prior.
Then comment on it in terms of harmful policies, anger over visas isn't a valid excuse to be racist.
The last past I believe is meant to be sarcastic since the current administration is encouraging racism and bigotry of all kinds.
Damn my fault for opening reddit in the morning lol
There are people who seriously say stuff that is joked about, it happens. 😁
Yes, I was being sarcastic.
We don’t need to get into political discourse here.
Not holding any hope in anti Indian hate reducing. Reddit is notorious for severe hate against Indians in so many posts and subreddits. True, in India we have the highest population so obviously we will have our fair share of morons and brainless people. Does that mean one should generalise? Not so. But then so many Indian hate comments get upvoted to high heaven, not just in this sub but everywhere else too, and honestly it's getting tiring to see.
I mean look at the subs picture
I mean the subs picture is because that dude was literally insane. It’s not because he was Indian but because he was a legitimate lunatic.
…so because the picture shows someone who’s not Default White, it invites or legitimizes racial commentary?
Thank you so much, I was getting uncomfortable with how many posts with/by women were just receiving comments like "Gonna sell her onlyfans soon"
Thank you, the reactions to that post were a mess
I didn’t see it but just happy to see Reddit mods being active here moderating this. We need more of this in other communities.
the amount of men who comment on women’s body’s or tell them they just need to do only fans is crazy
[removed]
No racism, sexism, homophobia, bigotry, or transphobia of any kind.
If you are making a comment based on or at the expense of someone’s inherent personal characteristic(s), it is likely a violation.
A claim of membership in a particular class of people is not a valid defense for posting bigoted content.
Thank you. I noticed a massive uptick in this about six months ago and I've stopped posting because damn, I'm a woman and it's tiring as hell.
It's also affected the watches circle jerk sub, which I used to love but now don't really feel comfortable commenting on anymore.
The racism in society in general is out of control.
Yes.
And sexism, that was the biggest one here :(
Thank you! Some of the posts about women take it too far. Was noticing an uptick of that.
Agreed about targeting of women, especially if they are conventionally good looking. Also, Anything about Indians was open season to bigotry about Indians. It is generally getting very tiring to be an Indian in reddit (also irl)
Absolutely, agree on that too. Glad the mods spoke up about it.
(It's tiring being a woman irl so I feel ya).
dude real. being an indian woman on reddit means taking so much psychic damage sometimes i had to stop clicking on posts from certain subs altogether
There's some truely unhinged people in this sub,
Not anywhere near the same level as sexism / racism but when one of my joke posts got posted here I was getting people going to random posts being like "this you?"
Unfortunately we can’t really stop people from doing that, as much as I would like to be able to block them from viewing the sub if they are banned.
Yo, I have a question
Does that pertain to all mods for a sub which one is subscribed to or is this a universal mod privilege? That’s a weird that there is a privacy switch to see deleted comments. That makes me reconsider my wide subscriptions ha
If you post or comment on a sub you are giving the mods of that sub permission to view your entire history for 30 days from your last post/comment, I believe.
I can’t see comments you delete, but I can see every comment/post you made on the site that is currently live.
Word, thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to characterize patterns of behavior. That isn’t widely advertised but it’s good to hear that it is conditional on interacting in the sub.
I’m loving this! Makes me happy to watch this subreddit again
Mod best practice right here
Finally, thank you mods
💖
Thank you mods for calling this shit out
We need to make clear that the discussion of LinkedIn becoming worse due to the abundance of AI generated comments and posts from non-english speakers, is a real and fair discussion when the issue is pointed at AI and not at the people themselves.
Agreed - a lot of people (fairly) flag AI content as something we need to moderate but taken in the context you described it is a legitimate basis for lunacy.
https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/yttzfc/does_posting_selfies_on_linkedin_mean_youre_a
Years old issue
Thank you.
Whoa. WTAF. They posted only the pictures and the first line of the context. This kind of crap isn’t removed by mods?
I’m newer here. 🤷♀️
Question: why is it considered mysoginistic or unworthy of this sub to share a screenshot of a woman on LI skintight yogapants (which would not be allowed in any business setting)?
If you're pointing out the lunacy of dressing that way on a business platform and not in anyway criticizing her body, what's the problem?
Just trying to understand the thought process behind not allowing this.
1) women historically are challenged, criticized, and held to a higher standard than men based on their appearance and sexual attractiveness. Insulting or demeaning them on their looks and sexual value has strong connections with disempowering and depersonalizing women. It places a standard/expectation on women that men do not face here. I honestly cannot remember the last time I saw someone make a post criticizing a male for dressing in an attractive way, being critical of their sexual attractiveness, or insinuating they should be a sex worker. If we do have those posts about men, it would be at a 1:100 ratio at minimum in my estimation.
2) clothing and dress standards are always changing and can be industry/location/regionally specific and stating that something is not permissible in “any business setting” is a perfect example of exactly why such broad generalizations are a bad basis for criticism.
3) it brings out weird incel comments that changes the tone of the content here from “lightly anti-late stage capitalism” to more demeaning and dehumanizing people who post attractive pictures.
4) I do not deny that there is a definitely a “time and place” for certain things, but frankly it’s low hanging fruit to post something here just because someone has a low cut top in an bullshit LLM paragraph about Business Stuff © - it’s really not “lunacy”. If we had a better quality of comment around this phenomenon it may be more permissible.
5) this is more of a general/personal comment but I really don’t get the idea of that LinkedIn is a “business” platform in any meaningful sense anymore. Yes, that’s what they market as but as they compete for market share it’s only going to be more and more open to more “casual” content to boost short term engagement for quarterly reporting. I feel like people should get over the gatekeeping of “this isn’t facebook/instagram/whatever” because change is inevitable as the internet/social media continues to shrink into like 5 websites.
Please do not respond with a debate of these points. The decision - for at least the foreseeable future - is final. Feel free to disagree but I’m not going to go back and forth on this.
Reddit on!!
Bless up. We can roast people without being bigoted I’m p sure
I've been having to leave subs left and right lately because of unchecked biggotry. Happy to see that this sub actually seems to care.
Thank you for speaking about this and keep up the good work!
Thank you for this comment and I hope we all take it seriously.
Affirmative. Thank you for our wonderful Reddit mods who keep the online community safe!
thanks for posting this and being willing to enforce good standards
Generalizations should be allowed if they are like stereotypes and not about hate.
Do women posting provocative pictures while talking about corporate well being or whatever still count? Or guys posting gym selfies?
As if anyone is posting the dudes in gym selfies here with the same seething remarks lol
See the 4th bullet. If the entirety of the post appears to be based on a photo with the intent on bullying a person for how they look, the vast majority of the time that will be removed.
Apologies, skimmed it and missed that that part. Thanks for clarifying.
Well said and well done 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
[removed]
We require a minimum account-age and karma. These minimums are not disclosed. Please try again after you have acquired more karma. No exceptions can be made.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[removed]
No racism, sexism, homophobia, bigotry, or transphobia of any kind.
If you are making a comment based on or at the expense of someone’s inherent personal characteristic(s), it is likely a violation.
A claim of membership in a particular class of people is not a valid defense for posting bigoted content.
[removed]
Shit changes. Deal with it.
It isn’t lunatic material to see a woman being attractive on social media.
[removed]
I’m making a specific judgement on the specific material and the specific reaction that specific content generates on this specific subreddit.
This isn’t a debate. Stop now.
Your post on r/LinkedInLunatics has been removed. We remove posts and comments for a variety of reasons, in accordance with our rules and Reddit standards. Thank you, the r/LinkedInLunatics mod team
[removed]
We require a minimum account-age and karma. These minimums are not disclosed. Please try again after you have acquired more karma. No exceptions can be made.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[removed]
We require a minimum account-age and karma. These minimums are not disclosed. Please try again after you have acquired more karma. No exceptions can be made.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Refreshing to hear, kudos on this
[removed]
No racism, sexism, homophobia, bigotry, or transphobia of any kind.
If you are making a comment based on or at the expense of someone’s inherent personal characteristic(s), it is likely a violation.
A claim of membership in a particular class of people is not a valid defense for posting bigoted content.
You really had me with that title. I was expecting a really wild LinkedIn post.
I aim to please.
Someone just gave me $2 through poop awards lol
https://imgur.com/a/ocRUr22
Thanks for the coffee if I ever cash out my Reddit bucks
(Please don’t give Reddit money for dumb awards, people)
Thank you
[removed]
We require a minimum account-age and karma. These minimums are not disclosed. Please try again after you have acquired more karma. No exceptions can be made.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[removed]
Your post on r/LinkedInLunatics has been removed. We remove posts and comments for a variety of reasons, in accordance with our rules and Reddit standards. Thank you, the r/LinkedInLunatics mod team
I don’t care if your “good time” requires you to have a venue to be a shithead to minorities. You are free to do that elsewhere and cease participation here if that is a requirement for your contributions.
I’m also happy to inform you that automation is already implemented to flag people for manual review when they post shitty, bigoted takes.
I agree with this overall, but looking through people’s post histories on other subs seems like an overreach to me. The decision to ban someone or not should be solely based on what they have posted in this sub imo.
They are considered as a holistic individual. If the post history indicates they spew hateful content everywhere and they are doing it here, too, then they can continue to do that without us needing to indulge it any further.
I agree; that's probably the best way to tell if someone made an honest mistake or is just a creep.
No mercy for anyone using LinkedIn. Sorry you want to be a corporate shill.
[removed]
We require a minimum account-age and karma. These minimums are not disclosed. Please try again after you have acquired more karma. No exceptions can be made.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Nobody is stopping you from that. I am stopping you from making bigoted comments that attack entire classes of people on the basis of an individual or a cherry picked group of people.
If you can’t handle that distinction, go elsewhere.
[removed]
Your post on r/LinkedInLunatics has been removed. We remove posts and comments for a variety of reasons, in accordance with our rules and Reddit standards. Thank you, the r/LinkedInLunatics mod team
[removed]
Your post on r/LinkedInLunatics has been removed. We remove posts and comments for a variety of reasons, in accordance with our rules and Reddit standards. Thank you, the r/LinkedInLunatics mod team
[removed]
Your post on r/LinkedInLunatics has been removed. We remove posts and comments for a variety of reasons, in accordance with our rules and Reddit standards. Thank you, the r/LinkedInLunatics mod team
The original post was misandrist and many comments were agreeing. Many comments generalizing about men. They are the ones still left on the post.
So, this just seems like another "it's fine if it's about white guys" post.
Flag. The. Comments.
There are no items in the mod queue at the moment. All flagged comments have been adjudicated.
Edit: I presume you are talking about this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/LinkedInLunatics/s/8QDtOKmLhz
I just skimmed it and I’m not seeing what you are seeing at all. The only things I see about men are (paraphrasing) “yes it’s believable a man would say this to a women” and even not that many comments
Edit 2: you framing this as an anti “white guys” thing is also dumb as hell and is really showing your hand.
u wanna be a victim soooo bad
[removed]
Nobody is obligated to give safe harbor for your “speech”
Make your own venue if you want your “speech” to be posted publicly.
I have taken the liberty of removing you from our ecosystem for everyone’s convenience.
Ah, the old "but muh freedom of speech" argument.
As if you are the police arresting them, and not a private citizen allowing them to suffer the consequences of their hate.
It’s the old “freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences” fallacy
And that freedom of speech only applies to the government, not everyone and everything else. 🤦♀️
Your post on r/LinkedInLunatics has been removed. We remove posts and comments for a variety of reasons, in accordance with our rules and Reddit standards. Thank you, the r/LinkedInLunatics mod team
[deleted]
https://imgur.com/a/gLy3x97
Edit: I also have no what what you are talking about or trying to threaten me with
Edit 2: I think I found the post: https://imgur.com/a/fEqzxX0
So…yeah, not super concerned about if I was wrong if Reddit came in after I removed it and nuked it.
Anyway since you seemed to threaten to take legal actions against mods we can’t in good conscience allow you to remain here.
I appreciate this a lot. I know this isn't the main concern, but as a religious person it is uncomfortable to see people subjected to public mockery as "Lunatics" for simply posting religious content on LinkedIn. Is it cringe when people do that? Absolutely. Would I use the platform that way? Absolutely not. But to label it as "lunatic" behavior seems uncalled for and nothing other than a signal for the usual Reddit atheist pile-on, which isn't why I come to this sub.
Thank god. The lunatics were starting to call from inside the house.
Wow, imagine actively participating in a sub about complaining about a fucked up system only to perpetuate EXACTLY the issues caused by said system.
People need to learn how to use braincells, I swear it is NOT that hard
Yeah it’s wild that people choose to come to this sub to spew shit that makes the workplace even more terrible for people to exist in
Sometimes I’m tempted to make r/LunaticsOfLinkedinLunatics
May I ask why you have chosen not to at least show your own comment history, subreddit participation, and moderated subreddits if you are going to be scanning over every commenter’s post history?
Moderating subreddits comes with the issue of harassment from users, so I get the need to hide your Reddit activity - at the same time it, also enables a complete lack of transparency as to how many subreddits a user moderates, and their sentiments, behaviours or intentions.
Should a moderator with 182K karma be able to access all user comment history while the majority of the user base cannot do the same to them despite having no to little influence in community decisions?
So in terms of moderating identity based discrimination:
To what extent are cases of tokenism or weaponisation of a marginalised identities within corporate settings allowed to veer into character insults or identity-based jokes, quips or commentary? In your opinion, where is the line a joke or satirical comment about say a black male CEO deriding other black people for not climbing the corporate ladder? For example the comment may be “For a black CEO, he sure embodies the ideology of a white CEO”
To what extent will you allow in-group commentary or joking on the part of minority, women, gender diverse, or other marginalised groups? How can we trust that the mod team is sufficiently understanding of these intricacies? Do you feel you have the ability to differentiate between in-jokes, satire, sarcasm or commentary based on text and your own identity?
Sexist or outright hateful comments on a persons’ appearance or group status do differ from commentary on the intention(s) of the poster based on their actions: taking a photo of yourself, attaching text - is an action - even if it is digital action your profile alongside your human identity are inherently tied to actions, subject and object. Identity is not a neutral, passive, or unmoving characteristic especially in relation to actions.
https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/1l2hl4l/curate_your_reddit_profile_content_with_new/?share_id=at-rlQxTzHi9bs2z5nOqp&utm_content=2&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1
https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/38066137959828-How-do-profile-visibility-settings-impact-moderators
In short, this is expected behavior from Reddit for mods to effectively moderate the site. It is not a hidden feature or anything secret. It is public information and while I doubt many go looking for it before flipping the switch to hide profile (which everyone should absolutely do)…it’s out there and available.
There is no objective, quantitative threshold and fallible human judgement is required.
The best metrics is unfortunately going to need to be a version of the Miller Test and the “I know it when I see it” threshold. These are imperfect since I and other mods are human.