you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] [M] -59 points 4 weeks ago (11 children)

Sidebar rule 6:

"No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 65 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (13 children)

    Any good justification for this rule you can think of?

    (Also… weird that you’re not actually enforcing it? Is it a “rule” or not?)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] [M] -69 points 4 weeks ago (10 children)

    Basic humanity? Graham lacked it, doesn't mean we should.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 105 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (15 children)

    So if we celebrated hitler's death we lack humanity? People should be free to celebrate a death if they feel to. Forcing your idea of a moral code over people is not nice. We are not talking about celebrating violence, a crime or wishing for somebody's death.

    People should be free to express their feelings if they don't hurt anyone, without having to fear the morality police. The point of modorators should be to create a welcoming and safe space, not to impose your morality on others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] [M] -48 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

    Doesn't matter if you think it's "nice" or not. It's a rule for this community.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

    Yes, and you could have answered "thanks for your input, but we are going to stick with our rules because we have our reasons", instead you basically tell me "Doesn't matter what you think, these are the rules and you must respect them. No discussion allowed". I mean sure, you make the rules, but the way you enforce them and react to criticism speaks for itself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] [M] -34 points 4 weeks ago (9 children)

    I don't make the rules here, but I do enforce them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 20 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

    You should answer the question posed though…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (14 replies)
  • [–] 68 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    Jesus fucking Christ. We’re really doing this high road virtue signaling bullshit here, too? Cool. Continue being part of the problem, I guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] [M] -34 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    If you don't like it, make your own community. It's a stated rule here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    Is there a rule about talking about disliking it? I don’t see one in writing, but it seems like it wouldn’t matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] [M] -7 points 4 weeks ago (7 children)

    Nope, no rule against it so long as you continue being civil about it. Shading over into personal attacks would break rule 3.

    Some communities have a rule against meta commentary, which this would fall under, but we don't have that rule here.

    Which is weird because !world@lemmy.world DOES have that rule and both were set up by the same person. (Rule #6 in World)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 4 weeks ago* (1 child)

    Cool, well, if it’s a real rule and not total nonsense you should probably get to work banning every single person in this comment section who is doing the thing you’re telling me isn’t allowed. Otherwise, I don’t know, it might be seen as obviously a bullshit rule used to selectively stop specific discussions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • [–] 33 points 4 weeks ago (18 children)

    Not positive that you should be enforcing your own personal ethics onto other people. Free speech should be a thing. If a person did bad things and people are glad that he is no longer in a position to do bad things, that is a celebration in itself. Trying to enforce opinions like this is self-congratulatory in that you consider your opinion is superior and worthy of judicial enforcement.

    Note that I haven't in the slightest commented on the man himself, yet still run the risk of banning. It all depends upon the moderator. This happens on Reddit all the time and that's the problem with this kind of moderation. It has a chilling effect. Give a censor a job and they tend to censor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [+] [M] -9 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    Freedom of speech is what the government controls. You have no freedom of speech within a private entity like social media.

    The TOS sets the overall rules, each community further defines them.

    The Lemmy instances which are "do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" get de-federated pretty damn quickly due to the raw sewage they pump out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • load more comments (17 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 16 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    Community rules are aggressively enforced against people the mods disagree with and fairly lax with those they agree. Jordan is usually pretty fair though. But yeah the celebrating death rule is applied very very inconsistently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] [M] -10 points 3 weeks ago

    Mostly because we physically can't read every comment and rely on reports.

    Events like this are fairly unique.

    So here's the situation:

    Last night? I didn't see anything removable or bannable and went to sleep.

    Waking up today, I had a butt-ton of replies to wade through, then reports, now I'm going through the whole comment tree looking for rule violations.

    So far, as of your comment, it looks pretty clean! I'm impressed!

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (11 replies)
  • [–] 35 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    The issue is that what is presented as a single rule is actually several different rules crammed into one sentence. It strings together multiple distinct ideas with commas, making it unclear where one prohibition ends and another begins. If each of those ideas is meant to stand on its own, they should be written as separate rules rather than bundled together under a single heading.

    Secondly, "celebrating death" is an extremely vague concept. Many cultures celebrate death in one form or another. Hindus, for example, have traditions that celebrate the passage into the next life. Creole culture also has a long history of turning funerals into communal celebrations.

    Moreover, what exactly constitutes a celebration of death? If someone feels happy that a particular person has died, they are not necessarily celebrating death itself. They are simply acknowledging that someone they disliked is gone and, in their view, that the world is objectively better off as a result.

    So if I say, "I am happy that so-and-so died," that is not, in and of itself, a morally reprehensible statement. It merely expresses an individual's emotions. No one is obligated to like another person or to feel sadness when they die. Death itself is not a moral act; the act of taking a life is. In this case, the individual died naturally rather than as the result of anyone's actions.

    As a result, I see no compelling reason why death itself should never be celebrated, whether the sentiment is meant to admonish the deceased or to honor them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 4 weeks ago* (8 children)

    Maybe amend the rule to "celebrating death of actual human beings". There's one person whose death will be celebrated far and wide, for sure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] [M] -7 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

    We did lift the rule temporarily when it was Kissinger. 😉

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    So it's a highly inconsistent rule that also get lifted when someone the mods hate dies? Holy shit

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • load more comments (6 replies)