- No Discrimination, this includes usage of slurs or other language intended to promote bigotry
- No defending oppressive systems or organizations
- No uncivil or rude comments to other users
- Discussion, not debate. This community is exclusively for genuine logical debate, any comments using whataboutism or similar will be removed.
- No genocide denial or support for genocidal entities. Anyone that supports the mass murder of civilians will be banned.
These guidelines are meant to allow open discussion and ensure leftists and post-leftists can have a voice. If you are here to learn, then welcome! Just remember that if you're not a part of the left (Liberals don't count) then you are a visitor, please do not speak over our members.
Alt text: a screenshot of a microblog post with the text "you walking down an alleyway with a gram of weed in your pocket, who would you rather catch you?" Below are two pictures side by side. One of Kamala Harris and the other of Batman.
Honestly don't think either one would give 2 shits about a gram of weed.
Also batman's a billionaire. That's worse than being a cop.
Edit: LOL are you just banning anyone that finds your meme shitty? Fragile.
I've banned people for violating multiple of our community guidelines, not for disliking or criticizing my post.
Okay, I call shenanigans.
Some of those comments are still visible, and I find your claim that they violated C/ rules a stretch at best.
I would hope that you either clarify your rules so that it is much less likely to happen in the future, or that you reevaluate the decisions.
The worst of the ones still visible to me would require a great deal of hypersensitivity and a nigh maniacal definition of any of the rules as they existed when I just went to look at them. Now, removing those comments, that would make sense. Warning the people that made them, makes total sense, but it would be better to build up the listing of the rules to include some examples, or you'd end up warning more people over time doing it piecemeal like that.
But bans? I hate to break it to you, but I used to be known for being a harsh mod I'm some ways, and none of those comments merit bans with the rules as they're currently written.
But, hey, it's your C/, do what you want. If you want to exclude any and all dissent, that's your choice. Just don't be surprised when the C/ ends up as an echo chamber with little to no activity.
The community has been mostly dead for nearly a month due to a lack of moderation, but before I and the other new mod took over this /c it was very intentionally a space free of people defending electoral politics and pro-capitalist politicians. That requires very active and (in some views) harsh moderation. The new mod team have agreed to continue the tradition of the original head moderator. What you call an echo chamber, I call a safe space for nuanced discussion of leftist and post-leftist politics. There are plenty of other places on Lemmy and elsewhere that are friendly to liberals and other capitalists.
I will not tolerate people accusing leftists of being Russian bots or assets in this community, and that's what I handed out temp bans for. If the community thinks my actions were too harsh, they can be reversed.
The wording of the community guidelines was changed a bit recently by the mod in charge before us, but after the original mod stepped down several weeks ago. Cassa and I have discussed reverting back to the wording of the old rules. We haven't yet because we didn't want to be seen as too eager to make changes. We will be considering making these slight changes because I agree with you - clearly spelled out rules will certainly reduce friction on moderation. Especially when moderation needs to be heavy handed.
Well, I definitely get wanting a dedicated leftist space for sure. It's the line between dedicated and echoey that's harder to pin down. Obviously, that's a line that has to be determined to some degree on the fly. Kinda hard to predict everything, so there's always change along the way.
Me? I see that line being about banning policies. A dedicated space won't permanently ban a first offense if the rules are vague (and they are here). An echo chamber bans any infractions immediately, no matter how few rules there are, or how clear they are.
Now, I quit being a mod for anything with chances of getting popular because reddit burnt me out with their fuckery, but I get it. Back at the turn of the century, I moderated a neo-pagan/wiccan dedicated forum. The tools to deal with trolls and bad actors were almost nil, and easy to get around. You ain't seen fuckery until you deal with christians that think they're on a crusade lol. All I could do back then was ban a specific account, and had no way to block new ones (wasn't my site).
So, I definitely get the need to preserve a dedicated space.
This is unasked for advice, so no issues if/when it gets ignored. I think the first thing to do, if you're gong to consult the community about what rules need to be, and the details of policy enforcing them, is get it in front of the community fast. Draw up your plans, post it, and get the feedback before things snowball. With the rules as vague as they are, and federation making it almost certain to bring in regular visitors that are new to not only this C/, but leftist thinking in general, you'll end up whacking moles left and right. Which is the lot of a mod, but when you have clear rules and policies, the jerks can't complain when they get banned because it's right there. The user has the obligation to follow the rules, but when they're meh, it leaves interpretation room. And that's a source for drama of the kind that got the C/ boiling recently.
I knew you were a good choice for mod, I'm glad you could do what I could not. Short correction however, the rules dont reflect any changes I attempted. I simply removed some language I deemed unessesary.
Yeah I was apparently supporting oppressive systems for stating a prosecutor can't unilaterally change laws. Dudes on a trip
This has never been a space friendly to defending or supporting liberalism or state violence.
"She was just doing her job," or "she can't unilaterally change laws" or similar are arguments in favor of the oppressive so-called criminal justice system.
Just want the snowflake mod to know that I’ve blocked this community because of his truly pathetic display.
Kamala*
And depends on which Batman. There have been iterations that absolutely would’ve assaulted/hogtied people for weed.
Some of the earliest Batman comics were about him beating up bootleggers. He also fought a villain who's goal was supplying cheap and safe pot.
He used to shoot people too in his earliest iterations.
Oh, nooo, a democratic politician is not gonna bring on a literal liberalsocialist utopia?! That's basically just like letting a literal faschist win! No difference at aaall!
Ow!
Why am I-ow!
Please, Mr. Mod, sto-ow!
Stop beating me with the anarcho-cop dild-ow!
Why am I being ban-ow?
is driven away in anarcho-mod-ist partolling vehicle
Notice yours and the other comments critical of me still up? I'm not banning anyone or even removing comments for being critical of me or this post.
I'm removing comments supportive of the US so-called justice system or being uncivil and rude in a way not condusive to nuanced political discussion.
I've temp-banned three accounts for calling me a Russian bot. That action my be too harsh for a first offence, and I'm open to discussion about that. However, that type of rhetoric has absolutely no place here.
Discussion about the moderation of this community is absolutely allowed, and as long as it doesn't degrade to throwing insults, it will all remain up.
I've really thought about whether I even want to engage with this. Mostly because I see your comment as dishonest, misinformed or maybe just tone deaf; to voice the kindest interpretation I can muster, from what I have seen.
Here's the deal: The US is currently at a point where its already fragile and lackluster democracy could become completely meaningless within a matter of months.
There's a time to push for more. But not now. You banned people and deleted their comment for "electioneering"; for advocating for the best path forward currently available. You may not like the system or the dems, but there just isn't any momentum for anything else. That has to be built up first.
If you want to bitch and moan, feel free to do so after the immediate threat has been dealt with. Anything else is practically accelerationism and will lead to a terrible outcome and disenfranchise who knows how many people.
Bargain with what you have and don't overextend.
EDIT: I'll not engage with anything that doesn't also offer a practical, actionable solution. Striving for the best is great, but look around you. Abolishing the police is not on the table, and not voting because of a single issue is shooting at ones own foot.
EDIT #2: Words.
What you're proposing is a failed strategy. Remember Hillary? People said exactly what you said, and she lost.
Trying to pretend the justice system is actually just, that's not going to gain her any votes. You could tackle the issue head on, and that might get her some votes. And voters are remarkably smart in many ways. Dishonesty alienates many of them. They don't expect that things are perfect now, but they do have hopes for the future, and they're on the lookout for obfuscation and denial.
Finally, the strategy you're proposing is something that MLK specifically warned against in Letter from Birmingham Jail.
I mean, sure, but also weird timing.
I don't find the timing weird at all with all the bootlicking I've seen from the wider fediverse lately.
People can change for the better, and Harris has changed her stance on weed.
Would I rather have a few other folks who were always on the right side of history? Yes.
Is someone who has improved on critical issues acceptable? Also yes.
When she publicly apologizes for her past drug and inmate politics, we can call it a day. Until then they just fucking our ass and asking for our vote later.
I'm sure that when she apoligizes for that you will just find something else to insist she apologize for since changing apparently isn't enough.
But what has she actually done to show any change? Lives are still ruined, they're still being ruined every day. She hasn't apologized, she hasn't undone any harm, she hasn't made progress on reparations to the communities she's hurt. All she's done is say "I changed" without actually changing anything.
We don't need to find anything else to insist she apologize for, she literally hasn't apologized for anything. We're asking her to take the first step and you're mad that we would ask her to take a second.
You're probably correct. Until capitalism and all unjust hierarchies are abolished, anarchists will always have criticisms for those in power.
I'm not sure who coined the phrase, and I'm probably paraphrasing pretty heavily here, but - Anarchism is a process, not a goal.
Complaints about moving the goalposts aren't really a valid criticism of anarchism in my mind. The goalpost is still seemingly impossibly far away. We're just trying to hit some checkpoints along the way.
It's so weird how critizing the lesser evil ticks people off!
Be critical of all authority, especially when they still stand by genocidal maniacs 😮💨
Batman.
I would just casually mention how his dead parents are dead and then steal his utility belt as he cries on the floor.
Also one of the tools in the belt has got to be an unlimited corporate credit card - just to flex on the guy I would lower the crime rate in Gotham by using the card to buy things for the homeless, pay for education & medical bills for everyone in Gotham, etc.
Batman does that already. Hes runs the largest charity on earth:
The Wayne Foundation is the holding company for the Thomas Wayne Foundation and the Martha Wayne Foundation; it is the largest transparently operated private foundation within the DC Universe. The primary aims of the foundation are, globally, the arts and humanities: to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology, and to fund scientific research and help altruistic people with research by providing facilities and training.
The foundation has its own building, called the Wayne Foundation Building, which includes a penthouse where Bruce Wayne lived for a period of time. It also has a secret elevator that leads to a matching Batcave in a secret sub-basement under the building.
Through the Wayne Foundation and the affiliated organizations underneath, Bruce Wayne addresses social-economic problems encouraging crime, assists victims of crimes, and maintains connections to the streets through the soup kitchens and social services groups; all of which augments his crime fighting efforts in a way that his Batman persona cannot. This arrangement also provides a large network of connections in the world of charities. He finds out about the newest trends, sciences and the arts.
Thomas Wayne Foundation
The Thomas Wayne Foundation is a foundation for medicine and medical help. This foundation gives annual awards for medical breakthroughs and lifelong commitment, similar to the Nobel Foundation. The Thomas Wayne Foundation is also responsible for funding the Thomas Wayne Memorial Clinic in Park Row, Gotham's infamous Crime Alley. The foundation funds and runs dozens of clinics in Gotham. Bruce Wayne's surrogate mother, Dr. Leslie Thompkins, runs the Memorial Clinic in Crime Alley and governed the other clinics until she left Gotham.
Martha Wayne Foundation
The Martha Wayne Foundation is a patron and supporter of arts, families, education, and tolerance. The foundation supports and helps to run a number of orphanages and free schools, and provides teachers for those who have learning difficulties. Artists can apply for grants from the foundation to help support them in furthering the arts. The foundation sponsors companies like Family Finders. Family Finders is an organization directed at finding lost people and uniting families. The Martha Wayne Foundation also sponsors and runs dozens of soup kitchens within the city.
Me: Kamala may be a democrat but they are still a conservative candidate
Lemmy: [ Sound of a kindergarten class after someone loudly farts ]
.world libs mad at the cognitive dissonance they feel knowing the "lesser evil" chosen for them has ruined lives for minor drug offenses.
I'm from Oakland, she also gave people the opportunity to not face jail time with the Back on Track program, instead allowing for education.
Here's the thing, Back on Track had people accept a felony charge. If they complete the program (which gives them no jail time but resources) then the felony is expunged.
Her truancy laws put in place as Attorney General were clearly pointed at my community, yes. But it also was done because before my graduating class (the year before it was put in place) was below 50%. My class was brought up to 78%, and the year after was about 68%. The reason this law was even considered was because there were a significant portion of children working with gangs to sell drugs instead of getting their education.
Give her all the shit you want for her problems, I 100% agree. However it's only fair to also highlight the actual policy she put into place and the opportunity for change that she created. I do not think it was the best way of moving forward, as it encourages people to be arrested and it encourages them to take the felony charge for something undeserving. At the same time, it's clearly better than just allowing children to participate in gang life and giving people only 1 option, imprisonment. No one ever seems to want to talk about that, though.
She fought against the Death Penalty when everyone was pushing for it for a cop killer. Not only did she save his life, she did so against Diane Feinnstein who then said she would not have supported Kamala had she known this.
She has been one of the few people who is willing to stick to her convictions when other party members told her to stay in line. She's also extremely anti-fracking, something that seems important considering the amount of sway oil companies have with L.E. and the military.
Finally, regarding your comment - I remember throughout 2016 and the following years the amount of assaults that Trump supporters felt completely safe committing hate crimes against black and asian communities. Is it really people choosing the lesser evil? The police can get reform, in fact we have a whole bill that AOC is pushing for right now regarding this.
Hate crime promoted by the president does not.
Thanks for the well written and thoughtful response. I appreciate your insights and personal experience.
I will say that this is not a space that's friendly to defending liberalism (even so called progressive liberals like Harris or AOC) or the use of state violence to solve any of society's problems.
With your comment in mind, and not out of any respect for electoral politics, I'll try to be more thoughtful with my criticisms in the future.
I appreciate the consideration! Like I said, there are plenty of valid criticisms to have against her, but a lot of what has been circulated I would say is either not entirely accurate or is critical of the wrong things. Especially these days, it's important to be fully aware of the intent and actual execution of policies.
With regards to this space - I completely understand. I am coming at it from the perspective of these are our options, and that leaves us with a serial sexual assaulter promoting hate speech with every word, and a candidate who has a (significant) number of shortcomings but also promotes the type of policy the U.S. has desperately been lacking. So to me, I'd much rather have the chance at imperfect progress with a candidate who at least holds a portion of the same beliefs I do (namely education & environment, mostly everything else I'm honestly not big on. And FWIW, I don't even think the Back on Track policy is good, it's just been talked about inaccurately which is the important part to me.) -- over the person who has actively called for the death of us, our friends and family, and the wider political system as a whole. As flawed as it currently is, I do think a dictator like him would be worse, with no opportunity for course correction.
Which is just another reason that it's important that we be honest in our criticisms, as we do want to hold the people we elect accountable, and the only way to do that is to be properly informed. Because it's absolutely true that this progress was lost in a gambit for the Dems to maintain voter sway. We lost Roe because of it, and education policy before that.
Anyway thank you for your time and response! Let it be known that I would have definitely much preferred a better candidate, but I also realize that we must work with what we've got. We can't let perfect be the enemy of progress because the last time we did that we lost 20+ years of progressive policy, more damage was done singlehandedly in 1 year by the appointment of Betsy DeVoss than the entire Republican effort of the last 25, and that is just education among the litany of other departments. To me, this election is more about paving the way for candidates that you and I would actually go out of our way to vote for, something I'm not as certain about given that under Trump's presidency queer politicians stepped down in local elections due to threats and fear of their lives, and numerous other every day Americans were attacked because of his rhetoric.
Best to you and I hope you have a lovely day
Locking this post because it's been plagued with liberal apologia from the start. This community does not exist to debate the merits of liberalism. Quite the opposite, it's intended to be a safe space from liberals constantly making us defend our views.
I'm afraid I've failed to achieve that in this thread, and have left up and engaged with too much liberal apologia already.
There has been some good discussion here even through all the muck. I apologize if I've cut off any good faith discussion.
To all the libs salty about having comments removed - you can debate the merits of your oppressors elsewhere. It won't be tolerated here.
