The first rule of AskHistorians is a very basic one:
All users are expected to behave with courtesy and politeness at all times. We will not tolerate racism, sexism, or any other forms of bigotry. This includes Holocaust Denial. Nor will we accept personal insults of any kind.
It is one of the oldest rules of the subreddit, and one which has seen almost no change over the existence of the subreddit, as it speaks to a core principle of our mission here, helping to ensure that conversations remain respectful and productive even in the face of disagreement.
While we hope that the basic idea is simple and easy to grasp, nevertheless we are going to spend a little time today discussing its purpose, interpretation, and enforcement.
Disagreement is a vital component of academic discourse, but academia has a set of standards that attempt to keep debates productive (e.g., the relatively dry style of most academic papers). While we never would wish to stifle valid, academic debate, we nevertheless recognize that even in the best of circumstances, users can get heated and a discussion can turn into an argument. But being louder doesn't make you righter. Nor does insulting the proponent of the other side make them wronger.
Respect is a core underpinning of a productive discussion between two opposing positions, and in the end, that is what we expect from our users. Passions can easily rise when a position is near and dear, but it does everyone a disservice to let them take over, especially the users reading along, who rather than coming away with a better understanding of the academic debate on a topic from both users' presentation, more often than not are simply going to be turned off by it all.
There are three core prongs that this rule deals with:
Each situation is handled in its own context. When it comes to incivility, there is no hard and fast guideline we can offer, but much of the time, it is fairly clear when this rule is being violated. We do our best to make sure we are evaluating the entire context of the comments, as something said in isolation can appear quite different in the flow of a conversation. We also do work to consider possible cross-cultural misunderstandings, and what the rest of someone’s Reddit posting says about their motivations and dispositions. As a user trying to follow the rule though, the best maxim to follow is the core of reddiquette as well, "Remember the human".
As for racism/sexism/bigotry, these are usually more clear cut. The simple answer is don't use those kinds of terms, whether directed at a user, or generally directed at the people it is used to denigrate. These will in almost all cases result in an immediate ban. We do realize that these terms are sometimes present in the historical record, but that doesn't somehow give license to sling them around. If they are appropriate for a legitimate answer to a question there is leeway of course, but we still ask writers to be considerate and empathetic in how they are used, such as by s******g out the word, or providing a content warning at the beginning.
Likewise, we recognize that some words may have different meanings for different cultures, being a slur in one country, while thoroughly reclaimed or simply lacking such implications elsewhere, such as is the case with "Queer" and its utilization trends, which for some is an identity and a field of academic study, but for others remains a slur tinged with hatred and bigotry. In situations like these, we again ask for users to simply be conscious and judicious in what words they might choose to use, and in what context.
There are plenty of ways to counter an argument you disagree with that don't require stooping to invective. If it is simply an academic position you disagree with, please remember to be respectful and engage with their position. If they are participating in good faith, you need to as well. If they aren't worth any other response than insult, than don't respond. You can instead report the comment to the Mod Team and we'll handle the matter. Trying to handle the matter yourself at best just creates more for us to clean up, and quite possibly means you'll end up being warned as well.
Two reasons! The first is that bigotry is a core component of this rule, and Holocaust Denial is inherently Anti-Semitism. It necessarily requires the accusations of a massive conspiracy perpetrated by hundreds of thousands of Jewish survivors engaging in an immense, coordinated lie on an unimaginable scale. Holocaust Deniers are Anti-Semites, and Anti-Semitism is a form of bigotry.
Secondly, while this is by no means the only rule under which denialism would easily fit, as it is the First Rule of the subreddit, we want it to be there front and center rather than buried half-way through the rules page. We have zero tolerance for people who deny atrocities such as the Holocaust or the genocide of Indigenous Americans, and believe that being clear about that from the start helps to set the tone about what kind of space this is intended to be.
We also apply this rule to usernames. If a username includes a slur or obvious allusion to one, or otherwise peddles in patently offensive terminology, we will not allow that username to post. As long as the content otherwise followed the subreddit rules, we will generally suggest reposting under another username, and we have no interest in pursuing the issue of ban evasion as long as one uses a second username in good faith.
No, we are not violating your freedom speech. This is a private space which we curate to provide an enjoyable experience for people who are seeking it out. You don't have the right to ruin it for others. If you want a place where you can call people names without consequence, you'll find plenty options elsewhere, so please spare us your misunderstandings of the First Amendment.
We're only human, and we do make mistakes. If you believe that the rule was applied incorrectly to your comment, the best course of action is a short and polite message to the Mod team via Modmail. Clearly state your case and why you think it ought to be reversed. Worst that happens is we say no.
One thing I wanted to mention as well that's very close to my heart and something I consider incivility, is deleting a post after it gets an answer. It doesn't happen a lot, but it can be pretty frustrating to see someone who's put who knows how much time into writing a post only for it to be deleted. Maybe OP didn't like the answer, or maybe they simply thought they could get rid of the thread now that they knew. Either way, it's very uncool. Not everyone knows this but deleting a thread essentially throws the whole thing into the lost void of the internet. A deleted thread can't be easily searched, and removes it from the front page/queue. So deleting a thread is not only rather insulting to the answer writer, it also hides that answer from everyone else so no one can enjoy it.
So please, please don't delete a thread after you've gotten an answer!
I always appreciated the heavy level of moderation here. Ive shared this subreddit with many in higher academia to explain the range of reddit's culture. It's truly one of the gems of Reddit. Thank you.
Well, I missed whatever happened that prompted you to reiterate the rules, but I want to take one of these rare chances to be able to post at all to say thank you, mods. You guys all do a great job here and I know it must be more work than most subs.
This recent question on Benjamin Franklin and his relations with prostitutes as he was in France had some uncomfortable phrasing to me : "harlots", the constant association of "French" with "prostitutes" (a common trope in over-sexualized representation of women in France in western production all over the XXth century). I was unsure how to react there (as I may read way too much in it) or even how to report it and eventually didn't : should I've reported it under "civility" even if it was peripheral to the question itself?
(Also, thanks you all, mods, for keeping the sub a well-behaved and genuinely nice place on Reddit.)
Hear hear
We do realize that these terms are sometimes present in the historical record, but that doesn't somehow give license to sling them around. If they are appropriate for a legitimate answer to a question there is leeway of course, but we still ask writers to be considerate and empathetic in how they are used, such as by s******g out the word, or providing a content warning at the beginning.
Censoring words for civility is something we were told specifically NOT to do at uni, that any circumstance where censorship would be acceptable would mean you didn't need to use the word in the first place and that if it becomes common practice it's kind of inconsiderate to scholars in 1000 years. Why is censoring the word considered a reasonable option here as presumably the word being used inappropriately would mean they had to remove it rather than censor it?
I don't contribute much so I don't really need an answer but I just can't help asking as that goes directly against what I was taught about self-censorship.
The greatest mod team on Reddit. Thank you.
“Being louder doesn’t make you righter”... taking that one home with me!
I'd like to take this opportunity to say how much I appreciate everything the mods do to keep discussions on-topic. Nearly every day I learn something new and interesting here about subjects I wouldn't even think to ask about.
I try to approach people with the spirit that I can learn from them. How do they see things that’s different from me?
It’s possible to disagree and not be disagreeable.
I appreciate this sub.
I’m still trying to figure out if the elimination of Argentina’s black population in the 1800s fits the definition of genocide. Just putting that out there :-).
Unrelated but I was wondering if this sub would be willing to produce some basic history book? It would be a great source, especially considering this is one of the few places that recognizes Indigenous peoples.
These types of posts are great! I hope they keep coming for each rule and recur somewhat frequently.
One of my biggest frustration as a reader of this sub is coming in to a question and seeing a 30-comment thread that just says deleted. Sometimes there's a mod post with the boilerplate suggestion to post better but more often it's just a ghost town.
I would argue that part of civility would be showing respect to the readers (whom would look at the thread and think "wtf? This could have been interesting) as well as the posters who took the time to share their thoughts and engage in a discussion with others which was then deleted.
Is there any desire to treat established comment threads which do not satisfy mod requirements any differently than a single top level reply? While the mods do a great job keeping answers high quality, losing out on discussions and potentially intriguing questions is a great frustration for the reader. Perhaps if there was a way to either force unapproved comments to be moved to the bottom of the comment chain or given flair to indicate as much, it would allow us to preserve discourse while keeping top comments cleared of misinformation.
Thank you always to the mods here. I always sent my university students to this and other highly moderated subs to learn about the history of sex from a population of truly informed experts.
The class was Human Sexuality, in case that's in question.
Late to the thread but I wanted to get on the mod love bandwagon. This is by far the best moderated sub I have found. Not all subs should be moderated as strictly as this one, but I would subscribe to a lot more if they were.
Why is the Holocaust often namedropped as the face of genocide denial? I'm not sure where I stand, but there's an argument to be made that statements singling out the Holocaust leave the rules on denying other genocides a little bit ambiguous. In fact, I've had discussions with people who use the Holocaust as an example of what 'real genocide' looks like in an attempt to discredit smaller, but just as valid, historical events. With this in mind, is there any want or need to replace mentions of the Holocaust in the rules with more general descriptions of genocide?
I love the policy! Excellent standards to bear and exemplify.
I think the rule breakers are mostly irregulars to this sub.
Now with the claim of genocide of various Native/Indigenous Americans, I understand why it is as a whole a genocide, and genocide requires intent, but its worth pointing out there were certain noteworthy moments that make it a bit different in that it was drawn out and longer and the genocideness happened in ebbing and flowing waves. some people thought that murdering and forcing off land was bad. Case in point is Worcester v. Georgia. SCOTUS said no. The white missionaries who were living among them and adapted long term no. President Jackson and Congress said yes. I just want to add more info.
Is ahistorical revisionism the same as historical negationism?
I would add Lost Cause to that list, but there are people who aren't neo nazis who believe it.
Well, since the nerds are out. I might get lucky and find someone who know something I don’t.
When I retire I have some books to write- history of Afro Argentines, Marielle, Maria Elena Moyano. Maybe it’ll be a graded reader to easily incorporate Afrolatino voices in Spanish language curricula.
Just to be clear, of someone has something like “queer” in their username, clearly as an identifier, not being used as an insult (ex “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it”), will that be tolerated in terms of the username rules? I really appreciate the high quality of moderation I see in these threads. I’ve only followed for a short time but I’ve learned so much all ready, and it’s nice being in a sub that doesn’t have a ton of bigoted comments in posts that can discuss big issues in a well researched fashion.
I wonder if it could be useful to create a usage guide for terms that might be more ambiguous. For example, some people may not know whether to use “Indian” or “Indigenous American”. Or, as is the case for queer, may not be aware that LGBTQ+ people can use it but non-LGBTQ+ people should not. Someone might accidentally use an inappropriate term because they’re a non-native English speaker, not up-to-date on what’s currently considered PC, or not part of the group being referred to and I think it would be more comfortable for readers if they know they’re not going to encounter unintentionally hurtful language - plus, it’ll help improve historical accuracy.
I don't deny the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide but does this disallow the questioning of evidence for them or counterarguments against them happening? I understand there may be those that argue in bad faith against them, but that occurs with plenty of historical events such as Indian nationalist revisionism that argues the indo european invasion of India never occurred or that Alexander the Great didn't win the Battle of Hydaspes. As well the last survivor of the Holocaust died this year so it may be natural for some people, that otherwise aren't bigots, to question whether events that none of us were witness to happened. Basically I'm worried that suppressing such discussions could do more harm then good by entrenching some people in these beliefs whereas discussion about it could convince them that these events occurred.