Permanently Deleted
Malt vinegar is mostly a UK, U.S., and Canadian food as far as I know. Mostly used on french fries. đ
EDIT: I sometimes have a hard time finding it here in the States, but I would look for places with English imports. I have also learned to enjoy other vinegars to substitute, like apple-cider vinegar and sherry vinegar.
No idea, tbh - I think you have a good question, I don't recognize OP's conception of hell either.
presumably OP is Muslim?
The problem of hell is a version of the problem of evil.
It might be worth reading this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/
If it's too technical, you might try the Wikipedia article, here are a few excerpts:
The logical argument from evil is as follows:
P1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C1. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.
...
If God lacks any one of these qualities â omniscience, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence â then the logical problem of evil can be resolved. Process theology and open theism are modern positions that limit God's omnipotence or omniscience (as defined in traditional theology) based on free will in others.
...
A version [of the evidential problem of evil] by William L. Rowe:
- There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
- An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
- (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.
Another by Paul Draper:
- Gratuitous evils exist.
- The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism.
- Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists.
It should also be mentioned that most lay people's concept of hell is radically different than the hell as described in various scriptures. I would be wary of any singular depiction of hell even within a religion, as scripture often has contradicting things to say about hell (with multiple plausible interpretations), and contemporary beliefs about hell are more informed by popular culture than scripture anyway.
Again, I direct to Wikipedia for the different depictions of hell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell
Ah, good point - I don't really feel your rules are too ambiguous. I can somewhat understand a rigid mindset for rule-following (which is maybe unrelated to OP's concerns, and is more about how I am relating to their request), so admittedly what I had in mind was more like a list of very specific examples of violations, maybe links to modlogs where users were banned for what they said, that act as examples for each category of violation.
It's overkill and probably not that helpful, but it is one way I could imagine a way of creating the kind of transparency OP wants without creating a bunch of very specific and rigid rules. That said, it sounds like OP could come up with their own list of those things themselves - AFAIK modlogs are public, so anyone could comb through them and build a kind of taxonomy of rule violations that way.
[it] can have the opposite effect, trolls using the rules as a weapon in their trolling.
I agree, I think the most likely outcome would be that the rules would be weaponized, used to try to argue that their particular kind of transphobia wasn't covered and it's unfair to ban them because it wasn't specifically cited, etc.
EDIT:
this space is not intended for transphobes to better themselves, it is meant as a place for trans people to feel safe
I keep wondering if it's worth having a separate instance for an /r/AskTransgender kind of community for people with questions and to help cis people engage in dialogue and learn more about trans folks.
While it's an unmitigated good to have safe spaces (esp. since there are so few for trans folks), I personally love to torture myself by talking to trans-naive or even transphobic folks, and would love to help well-intended people learn and grow if they are interested (even if realistically, that's not how most of those interactions go, lol). Obviously this isn't the place for that, I just wish there were a sort of border zone where those kinds of interactions could happen.
To be honest this sounds similar to a critique that general laws are weak because they rely on the subjective evaluation of judges.
For example, the famous quote "I know it when I see it" by a U.S. Supreme Court Justice on the threshold of what is obscenity.
Just as we rely on judges to interpret laws and apply them fairly and reasonably, we rely on moderators to be reasonable in how they enforce the rules.
Like obscenity, it is hard to capture a set of necessary and sufficient conditions that can define transphobia or homophobia.
Even if we tried to come up with a long list of rules to create more transparency, there is a principle of good legislation that "hard cases make bad law," meaning laws should intentionally be written in a general way aimed at the average case, and not written based on exceptional cases.
While it might feel more transparent to engage in making many explicit rules to cover every case of what is transphobic and bannable, it might also just make a mess and add no clarity.
In our case we would not want to write rules that cover every exceptional way that transphobes might behave that might get them banned, especially if doing so makes it harder for moderators to ban transphobes.
Instead it is better to have a single, simple rule that bans transphobia and let the moderators make judgements about what counts.
That said, I understand the desire for transparency - I wouldn't mind if there were something separate from the rules that illustrate some examples of behavior that would be considered rule violations, much like how famous cases help set precedent and create a kind of record of how judgements have happened in the past and so you can get a sense of how the rules will be applied to future behavior.
But I believe the moderator logs are already open, and it sounds like you already knew the people who were banned and were complaining were transphobes - which I assume you know by looking at the modlogs or by their behavior.
So, is the issue that the transphobes were not obviously transphobes to others (so they pulled the wool over the eyes of others)? Is the idea that making more salient what they were banned for would help with this situation?
let me know what you think of it, it was something academic philosophers I know were using; it reminds me more of a reference book, though (it's not really an intro book or anything)
Have you read The Philosopher's Toolkit by Julian Baggini? Your book rec made me think of it đ
Think and Being Good by Simon Blackburn
Think covers common topics an intro to philosophy class would cover.
Being Good is the same, but for an intro ethics class.
It's written in an accessible way, not like a textbook. Both books are very short and digestible.
mostly my anxiety đ
but more seriously, I need to plant the rest of my tulip bulbs - I converted most of my lawn into gardens, but now I don't have the time to grow food in the gardens like I planned, so I need easy to maintain perennials that look nice so my neighbors won't think I'm neglecting my yard (because I totally am).
Would there be any issue with abuse? Not saying we shouldn't do this, I'm for it, but I wonder what downsides we would need to mitigate - I assume trolls and bigots could use this to evade bans?
Maybe users that login with Tor would require special approval for their account before being able to post?
I just don't want to add significantly to moderation burden.
<waves hands mystically>
this is the least Pythagorean meme
+1 to Ted Chiang, besides Exhalation there is also his original collection of short stories, Stories of Your Life and Others.
huh, well thanks for clarifying đ
how does 19864 differ from 196? how did the subreddit differ from /r/196?
yeah, I thought the whole point of lemmy was not to centralize everything ... it's nice when things are spread across separate instances, as long as the instances federate
I'm personally impressed by Ada's moderator skills - it's not easy to deal with people, but she makes it look easy ...