Lvxferre @ lvxferre @lemmy.ml

This account is being kept for the posterity, but it won't see further acti

---

Read more

Posts

17

Comments

1,115

Joined

4 yr. ago

If you get a common cold in spring/summer, shouldn't you call it a "common warm"?

Why don't you go back to rdrama, GazaMarseyBomber?

(For others: criticism against a government does not automatically imply hate towards the individuals loosely associated with said government. Specially not when some of those individuals don't even pay taxes to that gov, and a few of them are criticising it too.

In fact, the very discourse of conflating a government with a population has a name - nationalism. OP is a nationalist and should be treated as such.)

"ALCA não! Álcool sim!" (no to FTAA! yes to alcohol!)

Okay I'm being slightly unfair because the "chant" in question was mostly a joke among the members of a bunch of small political parties, but it was seriously a damn shitty joke.

If eating alone (I usually eat in family), I'm usually listening to music. Past that... it depends, really. If I'm treating myself I'll probably just eat and listen to music, but if it's a "normal" meal I might do it in the front of the computer or TV while browsing or watching stuff.

The groups listed as example (notice the "etc.") are up to the admins, I'm suggesting mostly how to word it. It's easy to include/exclude one if they so desire.

That said, I do think that "religious affiliation or lack of" should be included. It might boil down to opinions + a bunch of epistemic statements, but it's consistently a source of persecution.

If your wording is adopted, it’d be nice to see the difference between attacking who someone is and an opinion someone holds made clear.

Personally I believe that this is usually easy - you look at the target of the claim. For example:

• "[religion] is full of bullshit" - probably attacking the opinions or epistemic claims, thus probably fine
• "[religion] is full of arseholes" - unless contextualised otherwise, probably attacking the individuals there, thus probably not fine

This is also up to the admins here though, not me.

Also needs to reference (dis)ability IMO.

I understand where you're coming from with this, but note that complains about ableism, in social media, are often shielding abled people against criticism, not disabled people from prejudice. Stuff like:

• [Alice] Bob! You're being a moron. Don't do this.
• [Bob] Alice dis is ableism!

I've seen weirder premises. And weirder cover arts - picture related:
\

Still, I like Tearmoon due to the comedy, it's fun without cringe.

I'm not subscribed to lemmy.world but I got a proposal on a way to handle this. Here it is:

5.0.1: Before and when using the website, remember you will be interacting with actual, real people and communities. You cannot use Lemmy.World to attack other groups of people, regardless of their sex, sexuality and gender, ethnicity and race, country of origin and residence, religious affiliation or lack of, etc. Every one of our users has a right to browse and interact with the website and all of its contents free of treatment such as harassment, bullying, violation of privacy or threats of violence.

I believe that this should be enough to clarify to those most people that no, bigotry is not allowed in your instance.

Mia's interactions with Anne took the spotlight for me, again. It's perhaps one of the few not [completely] motivated by Mia's self-interest, but also gratefulness.

Gotta laugh at her meeting Tiona, Sion and Rafina again in this loop. Oh, you want to avoid them? Too bad~

Poor Ru - a whole clan spoiling and overprotecting him was bound to make him a coward.

Those were probably genuine, clueless people being clueless. For trolling you don't ask "am I pregnant?", you ask "I'm pregnant and [my brother | my dog | I don't know who] is the father, what should I do?".

Starting to wish yahoo answers would come back.

Fuck, I miss trolling in Yahoo answers.

Noel Musk: "HERP DERP I'M AN OXYMORON!"

Greedy Pigboy: "WE OXYMORONS STAND TOGETHER! please notice me senpai Enol Musk..."

Complexity in general is undesirable. But sometimes it's a necessary evil. And sometimes trying to be too simple will have the opposite effect, adding complexity instead of reducing it.

I might be wrong but I believe that it's the case here. One of the lemmy.world admins already confirmed ITT that 5.0.1 will be enforced in a way to cover discrimination; this is great but the letter of the rule should be, IMHO, clearer on this. Perhaps a small tweak like

5.0.1: Before and when using the website, remember you will be interacting with real people and communities, and every one of our users has a right to browse and interact with the website and all of its contents free of treatment such as harassment, bullying, violation of privacy or threats of violence. You are not allowed to use this website to attack other groups of people, based on characteristics such as their sex, sexuality and gender, ethnicity and race, country of origin and residence, religious affiliation or lack of, or other groups that they might belong to.

would be already enough to shut the fuck up of both the alt right and witch hunters.

Just my two cents, mind you. (Note that I've kept "attack" - as you said in another comment [and I agree], it's clearer than "discriminate".)

It doesn’t need to be as intricate as US law (which I not sure why that’s “baseline” for anything).

IMHO it would be better if it was as intricate as Roman law. Because while the wording might be intricate, all you need to know if something is allowed, disallowed, or required is to simply look at the law.

In the mean time, "esoteric" law systems like common law expect you to look at the precedents. That works in real life due to huge bureaucratic apparatus and recording old cases, but for a simple internet forum you won't get it.

EDIT: my point is that trying to make something "too simple" will bite you back later on, with even more complexity.

Here's a link to the terms of service.

Frankly it sounds a lot like pseudo-legalese. IMO the worst of both legalese (that could shield the entity legally) and writing clearly (that could inform users). However it doesn't imply that discrimination is allowed here, and 5.0.1 ("Lemmy.World is not a place for you to attack other groups of people.") already arguably protects people against discrimination.

Doesn’t discrimination need to be allowed so the site can ban people for things without breaking their own rules? // Banning in one way or annother is kind of the definition of discrimination.

No. It's basically two different meanings associated with the same word:

• "to discriminate" as "to sort out", "to make a distinction" - necessary to ban users
• "to discriminate" as "to treat users differently based on social or individual prejudice" - what people shouldn't be doing

The first meaning is mostly used formally. The second one is kind of "default" when people talk about discrimination.

The fact that discoverability is so bad only reinforces the tendency to gather on larger comms - because it'll affect the most the smaller ones. I also believe that the demerits of the idea would outweigh the merits for the comms that already reached a local critical mass, and that's bad because most interactions happen on them.

IMO @Zaktor@sopuli.xyz's approach (handle it through the interface) is a better approach. It doesn't handle the problem of discoverability, but that could be addressed other ways (such as multireddits multicomms).

I don't think that fragmentation is always a problem. And, even when it is a problem, a lot of times it'll solve itself - users tend to congregate in larger communities, if everything else is the same. And when a piece of discourse is relevant enough, it tends to appear in all relevant threads.

Regarding the implementations, locking posts (partial or completely) and redirecting users would introduce problems like this:

• You'd create situations where the users can't discuss the topic, because they're being directed to an instance that defederated theirs.
• Sometimes userbases simply don't mix well, like water and oil, and redirecting both to the same threads will end disruptive and annoying for both.

So as silly as the first idea (request) might be, I think that it's the best of the three.

Brain plasticity, window of opportunity, it's all babble. You can learn new languages just fine as you age; the matter here is how much time you spend using the language.

The reason why adults perform generally worse than kids learning languages is mostly motivational, and not spending enough time with the language. But as an adult you got access to a bunch of resources that kids wouldn't, such as a decent grasp of grammar on theoretical grounds, that you can (and should) use to your advantage.

Note however that watching sitcoms will likely not be enough to get any decent grasp of any language. (Otherwise I'd be speaking Japanese, given the amount of anime that I watch.) You'll need proficiency on four levels: hearing, speaking, reading, writing.

Okay, I know that this will sound silly, but I'll use my cat as an example.

She does nothing but sleep, eat, shit. She's rather defensive of her personal space, and often hurts us for that. 3AM she woke me up with loud noises because she wanted to play. The floor, my clothes, my keyboard, there's cat hair everywhere, and without her I'd probably need to clean a fraction of what I do.

Would I get rid of her? FUCK NO. Because even if she's annoying, I still love her and I want her around. It would be certainly better if I didn't get those annoyances but hey, nobody is perfect. And she gives me happiness on the small things, like when she headbutts my leg or "mrrown-wown?" at me.

It's perfectly possible that you are in a similar situation as my cat. Except that, as a human being, you understand that you're hurting people, and you can reflect on your behaviour and change it for the best of the ones around you. But it's still perfectly possible that you're underestimating the positive impact that you have in their lives. And at the end of the day, we all are like this, our social interactions are usually a mix of positive and negative.