The following are screen captures of some parts of MR, and a key explaining them.
A. The current logo for MR. By default, all subreddits' logo is the Reddit logo (a white and orange smiling alien), but this can be changed (and often is) by moderators. Currently, this one calls for acceptance of gay males' rights. These will routinely change, due to the decision of a moderator, inspiration from a heated conversation, or the community simply being bored of what has been stuck in the corner.
B. All subreddits default to the first tab, what's hot, which are based on user votes and popularity. The other tabs indicate other ways to filter the submissions. For example, controversial will lead to discussions that have been severely "downvoted," likely due to a controversial topic or stance that the submitter took.
C. This sidebar is customizable, in terms of what texts and links can be placed there. Whenever a user goes directly to a subreddit, this is the information pane they will generally seek out first, so that they learn the rules of the community. Usually moderators will include a link to the FAQ, external links of interest related to the subreddit, and any other information they might find beneficial to the reader.
D. The arrows allow a registered user to "upvote" or "downvote" a submission. Their vote counts only once. The number between the arrows reflects the total number of upvotes.
E. A submitted link. The blue URL is the title that the submitter gave. The text in the grey is the referring site, and clicking directly on the submission will lead the viewer off Reddit, and to an external site.
A screen capture of an expanded conversation. Clicking on "comments" under any submitted link on the main page will take one to the discussion section of the link.
Here, the top-voted commentator is also the original poster (OP) of the submission. You can easily see who is the OP of a topic by the blue highlighting around their username, which provides easy identification when a viewer is scrolling through a long discussion thread. At the end of his author line, one can see that he received 25 upvotes, and 2 downvotes for this comment. This adds to a person's "comment karma," an arbitrary system of measuring one's contributions (and assuming their popularity/wittiness/etc) to the site. The OP also quotes parts of the articles (indicated by the blue stripes alongside segments of text), then immediately follows the quotes with his own comments.
By analyzing the language used by OPs, sites they link to, and ensuing discussions, this provides insight into how the community functions, and what appears to be the community's core beliefs.
OPs tend to use specific rhetoric to speak to their known audience (which consists of supporters in the community, and outsiders that they know are watching), which underscores their apparent ethos as an advocate for men's rights (through the filter of the MR subreddit). They regularly appeal to other participants through logos by invoking very particular vocabulary and argumentative methods that are somewhat unique to this subreddit. (Generally, their usage of logos speaks to perpetuate stereotypes throughout the community, and simultaneously purposely inciting opponents to MR.)
Subscribers will generally align to some sort of group mentality, reflecting their affinity group that orbits the main topic of men's social rights. There is an almost total unanimity toward loathing sites such as Jezebel.com (feminist-leaning popular blog) or the Huffington Post, whereas they gladly support any anti-feminist blogs or news articles that tangentially substantiate a MR ideology. While outsiders generally harass or otherwise instigate what appear to be harmless arguments with MR subscribers, some others genuinely find MR to be the best place to discuss MR.
Affinity groups can undoubtedly be beneficial for those who seek it, but what role do they play with outsiders to their inner circle? Is it fair to take strong stances against another group, without inviting constructive arguments or criticism? Should affinity groups, such as MR, be welcomed without question to their actual motives and tenants? And what makes an affinity group a legitimate source for information? Oooh, only time and screencaps shall tell!
No comments:
Post a Comment