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.
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.
I think the larger point is maybe you shouldn’t be allowed to, because you’ve admitted to arbitrarily suspending that rule when someone YOU are fine celebrating dies, like Kissinger.
OK, so a better way to phrase that would be that the collective “you” has no business enforcing a rule that “you” decided not to enforce against yourselves, because “you” happened to agree with the death.
Dodging questions is a bad look, especially ones that illustrate your point is flawed. I would just say no, it’s only “loaded” if you’re position isn’t defendable
It’s been answered. People are going to try to pick it apart because they don’t like it. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t answered. You’re free to celebrate death, just not here.
It might help you understand WHY you’re getting ratioed if you understand this:
Lindsay Graham was basically a serial killer who used votes rather than knives.
Imagine a serial killer murdered someone you love. Wouldn’t you cheer when you find out he’s died? Wouldn’t you be happy he is dead and no longer able to harm others the way he harmed your loved one?
That’s how we feel about Graham dying. That’s what we’re celebrating. Graham is the serial killer who murdered our mama, and we’re happy to see him die.
Jordan doesn’t read anything that proves him wrong, he’s even linked articles that disagree with his views, and then banned people who pointed that out.
I have empathy for the people whose lives were made miserable by republican policies graham championed and I celebrate one less champion of those policies fucking people over
There’s a big difference between Kissinger and Graham, I mentioned this in another reply, but it bears repeating…
Kissinger had the power and ability to act alone in his atrocities.
Graham, as a member of the Senate, did not have that ability. Whatever evils he enacted, he was able to do so with the consent of a majority of the House, Senate and President.
Kissinger did what he wanted, Graham literally could not on his own.
Not saying he did good things, he was a complete tool, but a majority of the Legislative branch signed off on the things he did. Not the same thing at all.
he was able to do so with the consent of a majority of the House, Senate and President.
So he was still a bad person but also other people agreed with him and enabled him to do bad stuff
This is like saying “Jeff was not a bad person, they would restrain him so he couldn’t kill, while Josh was a very bad person because he could kill without restriction”
No. This high road bullshit is why we are in the hole we’re in now. You want to play the game, you need to understand the rules. And you naive to think anything else.
I won’t condone murder, but this fucker deserves his abrupt death and the vitriol that follows. We will always be at the mercy of those fucks because of people like you and it’s time you understand.
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.
I’m working on it. It was clean when I shut down for the night last night, checking the comments now, but I have to get through a buttload of replies first. 😉
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.
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.
I do agree that censorship and freedom of speech are related to how a government deals with the matter, so you are right.
However, free speech principles have, thankfully, escaped the confines of government control. People generally like to express an opinion and hear others - particularly on private platforms that are supposedly set up for that express purpose. Sure, set of terms of service putting arbitrary guard rails on ethical grounds (one’s own) and see what that gets you in the long run.
Most of us already know the extremities of free speech. Saying ‘great’ when a douchebag stops being a douchebag is hardly ban worthy.
Or maybe it is, and if so, welcome to your weather channel.
ML is full thought police. You get banned for saying that democrats are a better option than republicans because it’s liberal apologism or some other dumb fuckin shit, and all the heavy hitters just spam gpt slop twisting communist theory to explain why the total breakdown of society is actually a good thing, it’s fuckin crazy over there. If dessalines sees this comment he’d instance ban me. World is shit but ML is a fuckin joke.
You just make an account on a different instance. Lemmy instances are kind of like email providers. You can have a slickgoat@lemmy.world, slickgoat@lemmy.dbzer0.com, slickgoat@lemmy.ml, etc… Different instances will tend to have very different admin styles. You also still need to follow the rules for whatever local community you’re on as well. So using this thread as an example, I’m on lemmy.dbzer0.com but I still need to follow the local mod’s “no celebrating death” rule. As long as they’re federated with the same instances, you’ll be able to see all the same content.
lemmy.world tends to be many users’ first instance, simply because .world was one of the few instances that kept open registrations during the biggest Reddit migration. So it’s the largest, simply because it’s where most of the new users landed. But it is also frequently looked down on by other instances, because the .world mods tend to skew farther right than lots of Lemmy users prefer.
Mate, that was so generous of you to go to so much trouble to explain all that. I’ve been on this thing for a while now, and yours is the first explanation to make sense.
Ok agreed. No surprise night raping or murdering people in colonial genocide projects that Graham Cracker. I hope we’ll all live to celebrate that fucker dying some day too.
Basic humanity? Graham lacked it, doesn’t mean we should.
I’d like to advocate for a reexamination of that rule.
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.
Doesn’t matter if you think it’s “nice” or not. It’s a rule for this community.
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.
I don’t make the rules here, but I do enforce them.
Right, “you were just doing your job” …
Also known as the nazi defense.
Out of curiosity who does make the rules? You’re a moderator right? Doesn’t that mean you make the rules or at least contribute to them?
The original creator of Politics created the rules and invited me, and others to help moderate the rules they created.
Looking at this comment section, you are clearly NOT enforcing them.
Is it a bannable offense or not?
At the time I shut down last night, I didn’t see anything bannable. Going through comments now, but doing my replies first. 😉
You might as well, since you decide to ban everyone you don’t like. And get away with it by the admins never touching you.
No, I don’t. Case in point, you’re still here, right?
I remove posts and comments that break the rules, and I ban people for cause.
I think the larger point is maybe you shouldn’t be allowed to, because you’ve admitted to arbitrarily suspending that rule when someone YOU are fine celebrating dies, like Kissinger.
It was a mutual decision, not mine alone.
I believe the exact quote was “Yeah, rule 6, but fuck that guy.”
OK, so a better way to phrase that would be that the collective “you” has no business enforcing a rule that “you” decided not to enforce against yourselves, because “you” happened to agree with the death.
“nanana boo boo”
You should answer the question posed though…
Disingenuous questions don’t get answers. Ask a question in good faith and I’ll answer it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
Dodging questions is a bad look, especially ones that illustrate your point is flawed. I would just say no, it’s only “loaded” if you’re position isn’t defendable
When did you stop beating your significant other?
See how that works? Hey, I’m just asking questions…
Never started, next question?
It’s been answered. People are going to try to pick it apart because they don’t like it. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t answered. You’re free to celebrate death, just not here.
No, no, you don’t get it. It’s not about being nice, it’s about telegraphing what a good, nonthreatening supplicant you are
I already said he was an asshole and cited the reason, that’s not supplication.
You don’t have to celebrate death to prove you aren’t a supplicant. 😉
It might help you understand WHY you’re getting ratioed if you understand this:
Lindsay Graham was basically a serial killer who used votes rather than knives.
Imagine a serial killer murdered someone you love. Wouldn’t you cheer when you find out he’s died? Wouldn’t you be happy he is dead and no longer able to harm others the way he harmed your loved one?
That’s how we feel about Graham dying. That’s what we’re celebrating. Graham is the serial killer who murdered our mama, and we’re happy to see him die.
I love how they just ignore this extremely well said criticism and just keep spamming this “human decency” angle
Jordan doesn’t read anything that proves him wrong, he’s even linked articles that disagree with his views, and then banned people who pointed that out.
You wrote the words “basic humanity” as if that was supposed to make sense as a justification for a rule. Don’t think we’ve seen a reason.
Reason enough for people with basic human empathy.
I have empathy for the people whose lives were made miserable by republican policies graham championed and I celebrate one less champion of those policies fucking people over
Would you react the same if he killed directly instead of indirectly?
There’s a big difference between Kissinger and Graham, I mentioned this in another reply, but it bears repeating…
Kissinger had the power and ability to act alone in his atrocities.
Graham, as a member of the Senate, did not have that ability. Whatever evils he enacted, he was able to do so with the consent of a majority of the House, Senate and President.
Kissinger did what he wanted, Graham literally could not on his own.
Not saying he did good things, he was a complete tool, but a majority of the Legislative branch signed off on the things he did. Not the same thing at all.
So he was still a bad person but also other people agreed with him and enabled him to do bad stuff
This is like saying “Jeff was not a bad person, they would restrain him so he couldn’t kill, while Josh was a very bad person because he could kill without restriction”
I said almost the exact same thing.
Ahhhh, the “when they go low, we go high” approach.
Gee whizz, that approach has really been working out so far, hasn’t it…
i mean i go everywhere high. it's worked pretty well for me.
i get i’m a bit of an outlier though
Obviously it needs to go higher so that the fall is harder
No. This high road bullshit is why we are in the hole we’re in now. You want to play the game, you need to understand the rules. And you naive to think anything else.
I won’t condone murder, but this fucker deserves his abrupt death and the vitriol that follows. We will always be at the mercy of those fucks because of people like you and it’s time you understand.
Jesus fucking Christ. We’re really doing this high road virtue signaling bullshit here, too? Cool. Continue being part of the problem, I guess.
If you don’t like it, make your own community. It’s a stated rule here.
Is there a rule about talking about disliking it? I don’t see one in writing, but it seems like it wouldn’t matter.
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)
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.
I’m working on it. It was clean when I shut down for the night last night, checking the comments now, but I have to get through a buttload of replies first. 😉
What the hell is “meta commentary”?
Exactly this, arguing about the community rather than the topic of the post.
So you are telling me that there are many ways of sticking rags in my mouth because a community needs to be protected from other voices. Gotcha!
Not this community, but others, yes, absolutely. Always why you want to read the sidebar and see what rules are in place.
Would you celebrate the death of Hitler?
JL has previously said that Black Lives Matter was a bad thing and has removed psots critical of Israel. So that answers your question.
I’m familiar with his many bad takes lol.
About eighty years too late, but at the time I feel like I would’ve.
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.
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.
Totally true. But the reality is people are going to go to whatever platform they feel most free to express themselves on.
That’s literally why everyone left Reddit for Lemmy. And they’ll leave Lemmy too.
Just making an observation.
The reason people left Reddit wasn’t a speech issue, it was that they ganked the API and killed all the 3rd party apps.
I do agree that censorship and freedom of speech are related to how a government deals with the matter, so you are right.
However, free speech principles have, thankfully, escaped the confines of government control. People generally like to express an opinion and hear others - particularly on private platforms that are supposedly set up for that express purpose. Sure, set of terms of service putting arbitrary guard rails on ethical grounds (one’s own) and see what that gets you in the long run.
Most of us already know the extremities of free speech. Saying ‘great’ when a douchebag stops being a douchebag is hardly ban worthy.
Or maybe it is, and if so, welcome to your weather channel.
Then what’s the point?
free speech is also a personal ethic. now kiss
Lol welcome to lemmy politics.
True, I should probably quit social media altogether. Having opinions is never welcome unless they are authorised opinions.
Just find a better instance. We’re having a crab rave over on .ml about this war criminal’s death.
ml is hardly innocent of policing opinions
Better than jordanlunds morality policing.
ML is full thought police. You get banned for saying that democrats are a better option than republicans because it’s liberal apologism or some other dumb fuckin shit, and all the heavy hitters just spam gpt slop twisting communist theory to explain why the total breakdown of society is actually a good thing, it’s fuckin crazy over there. If dessalines sees this comment he’d instance ban me. World is shit but ML is a fuckin joke.
LOL
It’s morality policing. Just a different angle.
I’ve had a much better experience on there than .world, but I’m a non-American socialist.
Help a boomer out… How do I change instances?
You just make an account on a different instance. Lemmy instances are kind of like email providers. You can have a
slickgoat@lemmy.world,slickgoat@lemmy.dbzer0.com,slickgoat@lemmy.ml, etc… Different instances will tend to have very different admin styles. You also still need to follow the rules for whatever local community you’re on as well. So using this thread as an example, I’m onlemmy.dbzer0.combut I still need to follow the local mod’s “no celebrating death” rule. As long as they’re federated with the same instances, you’ll be able to see all the same content.lemmy.worldtends to be many users’ first instance, simply because .world was one of the few instances that kept open registrations during the biggest Reddit migration. So it’s the largest, simply because it’s where most of the new users landed. But it is also frequently looked down on by other instances, because the .world mods tend to skew farther right than lots of Lemmy users prefer.Mate, that was so generous of you to go to so much trouble to explain all that. I’ve been on this thing for a while now, and yours is the first explanation to make sense.
Very much appreciated.
Cheers,
Mic check covered it nicely, you just make an account through that instances site.
Thanks Mate
Seriously. In so many ways this place is worse than reddit.
You’re free to start your own instance with whatever rules you choose.
That is a ratio.
Maybe the rules should be put to a vote by the community?
The community doesn’t set the rules, that way lies madness.
what about being sad that he died… this late?
Ok agreed. No surprise night raping or murdering people in colonial genocide projects that Graham Cracker. I hope we’ll all live to celebrate that fucker dying some day too.
Now on the celebrations.