“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.”
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.
One of the great many problems with the"celebrating death" rule (whatever that means) is that much commentary is generated just talking about why it it pointless. The moderators must have already removed the most violent opinions because most of the ones remaining are along the lines of “good, I’m glad”. Pretty tame stuff, but apparently not permitted all the same.
If it is a rule, at least you have the good sense to realise that “celebration” is a pretty broad term and should be handled judicially.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I know no one wants to hear this right now but celebrating death degrades us. To join the grim reaper’s cheering section is to sit with the ghouls.
If you want to convince me there’s some great practical value in it, go ahead and try, but I don’t see it. To me, it’s an act that accomplishes nothing except lowering us. And believe me, I fucking hated Lindsay Graham. I’m glad he will do no more harm, but that’s as far as I prefer to go.
No, obnoxious is the way y’all are piling your hatred for Lindsay Graham onto this poor mod because he won’t let you rip Graham’s body to pieces inside the community center. As if that would do anyone any good. Straight up fucking scapegoating going on right here. He’s handled you all quite well.
Graham caused some fatalities too, not at the level of a war criminal ofc, but still, he did some pretty bad damage so what i see is just an excuse to celebrate the death of someone you dislike;
If everyone is human Graham included then Kissinger is too, yet you celebrated Kissinger death, which mean you deem one less human than the other which just look hypocrisy to me, this whole rule is bullshit but it’s even more bullshit how you all enforce it and remove it as you like for certain people
You either enforce it for all or for no one, which IMO the better one is the 2nd option because the rule is just blatantly enforcing your own moral.
Maybe we’re thinking of similar things, but I thought it took killing, not dehumanization. I mean it’s easier to convince a bunch of someones to kill someone else if you first dehumanize the someone else to the someones so I get where you’re coming from tho
Agreed. The worst people in history were all still very much human. They had internal complexity that caused them to live the lives they lived and make the mistakes they did. And those humans were terrible people whose deaths deserve celebration, because they’re shining examples of which parts of humanity we should strive to avoid emulating.
I know, people hate it when you point out the rules they agree to by participating here even though they are clearly posted and they never read them. 😉
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.”
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.
“or” makes it clear to anyone with an understanding of English that these are each separate items.
One of the great many problems with the"celebrating death" rule (whatever that means) is that much commentary is generated just talking about why it it pointless. The moderators must have already removed the most violent opinions because most of the ones remaining are along the lines of “good, I’m glad”. Pretty tame stuff, but apparently not permitted all the same.
If it is a rule, at least you have the good sense to realise that “celebration” is a pretty broad term and should be handled judicially.
What a stupid rule
Can we still celebrate the sudden reduction in evil secondary to his death?
I wouldn’t have a problem with that. I’d add that today seems 2.85714286E−9% brighter without him in it.
Excellent! *champagne*
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?)
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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. 😉
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.”
“nanana boo boo”
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?
I said almost the exact same thing.
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.
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
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 [email protected] 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.
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.
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.Mic check covered it nicely, you just make an account through that instances site.
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.
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.
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!
Probably made by the Flatheads. I Ewok celebrate at Nazi’s end, cuddle bite me.
Want some rye?
‘course you do.
Now that’s a reference I haven’t seen made in years. Good memories.
(Pouring noises)
I know no one wants to hear this right now but celebrating death degrades us. To join the grim reaper’s cheering section is to sit with the ghouls.
If you want to convince me there’s some great practical value in it, go ahead and try, but I don’t see it. To me, it’s an act that accomplishes nothing except lowering us. And believe me, I fucking hated Lindsay Graham. I’m glad he will do no more harm, but that’s as far as I prefer to go.
This is so obnoxious.
No, obnoxious is the way y’all are piling your hatred for Lindsay Graham onto this poor mod because he won’t let you rip Graham’s body to pieces inside the community center. As if that would do anyone any good. Straight up fucking scapegoating going on right here. He’s handled you all quite well.
No one’s forcing him to police adult conversations for decorum in the middle of a cold civil war.
It’s literally his role to do that. Now find something to do besides bitching. You’re not saving the world here.
Not sure what’s worse here, being the cop or being his cheerleader.
Come on, you can hit lower than that.
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.
We did lift the rule temporarily when it was Kissinger. 😉
So you decide when it applies and when it doesn’t? Sounds like this community needs a new mod with some integrity
We made an exception for an incredible war criminal, yes. Don’t expect us to do it for everyone.
So it’s a highly inconsistent rule that also get lifted when someone the mods hate dies? Holy shit
Wasn’t just “the mods hate”. Kissinger was legit a war criminal.
As much as we all hate Graham, he was not at the same level as Kissinger. Few are.
And you get to determine that?
Nope, literally everyone else. Google “Kissinger war criminal”, then try “Lindsey Graham war criminal”.
The difference between them is clear. As a member of the Senate, Graham was incapable of acting on his own. Kissinger was not limited.
By the way, i wonder if you will ever reply to my replies, lol
Literally avoided both my replies like the plague
I had like 50 or 60 replies today, if they were disingenuous questions, you won’t be getting answers.
Graham caused some fatalities too, not at the level of a war criminal ofc, but still, he did some pretty bad damage so what i see is just an excuse to celebrate the death of someone you dislike;
If everyone is human Graham included then Kissinger is too, yet you celebrated Kissinger death, which mean you deem one less human than the other which just look hypocrisy to me, this whole rule is bullshit but it’s even more bullshit how you all enforce it and remove it as you like for certain people
You either enforce it for all or for no one, which IMO the better one is the 2nd option because the rule is just blatantly enforcing your own moral.
Sorry, is there a question?
What do you mean? Do i have to wait for a question that will never come to express criticism of your mod-ing?
The rules are anything Jordan decided to avoid you and any criticism, all thoughts must slide off his smooth mind.
Graham may get a footnote in future history books in the chapter on the fall of democracy in the western hemisphere.
You see, JL moderates on vibes more than rules. That’s why the admins allow him to break rules and their TOS constantly.
You see why this doesn’t make it better, right?
No, he really doesn’t.
i mean while i agree, i don’t want to get into the habit of dehumanizing people (even if it feels fair play for any given specific person).
It took a whole fucking lot of dehumanization to defeat the actual historical Nazis.
Maybe we’re thinking of similar things, but I thought it took killing, not dehumanization. I mean it’s easier to convince a bunch of someones to kill someone else if you first dehumanize the someone else to the someones so I get where you’re coming from tho
Why should we humanize people who were literally fascists who dehumanized others?
who said we had to do that? i just don’t like dehumanizing.
Agreed. The worst people in history were all still very much human. They had internal complexity that caused them to live the lives they lived and make the mistakes they did. And those humans were terrible people whose deaths deserve celebration, because they’re shining examples of which parts of humanity we should strive to avoid emulating.
He is, after all, a human being. A shit one at that, but still human.
Genuine question: does saying “womp womp” count as celebrating?
I wouldn’t say so, ditto for:
https://youtu.be/CQeezCdF4mk
lmfao wow this is some real reddit shit. mass downvoting the guy who answered the questionedit: oh wait it’s the same guy, it makes sense then. still, shouldn’t downvote the answer.
This is why people hate you, you know.
He knows, he doesn’t care. He gets to be a reddit mod on lemmy and think he’s better for it.
I know, people hate it when you point out the rules they agree to by participating here even though they are clearly posted and they never read them. 😉