• 0 Posts
  • 108 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 14th, 2023

help-circle



  • It’s a discussion of principle.

    This is a foreign concept?

    It appears to be a foreign concept for you.

    I don’t believe that it’s a fundamentally bad thing to converse in moderated spaces; you do. You say “giving somebody the power to arbitrarily censor and modify our conversation is a fundamentally bad thing” like it’s a fact, indicating you believe this, but you’ve been given the tools to avoid giving others the power to moderate your conversation and you have chosen not to use them. This means that you are saying “I have chosen to do a thing that I believe is fundamentally bad.” Why would anyone trust such a person?

    For that matter, is this even a discussion? People clearly don’t agree with you and you haven’t explained your reasoning. If a moderator’s actions are logged and visible to users, and users have the choice of engaging under the purview of a moderator or moving elsewhere, what’s the problem?

    It is deeply bad that…

    Why?

    Yes, I know, trolls, etc…

    In other words, “let me ignore valid arguments for why moderation is needed.”

    But such action turns any conversation into a bad joke.

    It doesn’t.

    And anybody who trusts a moderator is a fool.

    In places where moderator’s actions are unlogged and they’re not accountable to the community, sure - and that’s true on mainstream social media. Here, moderators are performing a service for the benefit of the community.

    Have you never heard the phrase “Trust, but verify?”

    Find a better way.

    This is the better way.



  • Yes, I know, trolls etc. But such action turns any conversation into a bad joke. And anybody who trusts a moderator is a fool.

    Not just trolls - there’s much worse content out there, some of which can get you sent to jail in most (all?) jurisdictions.

    And even ignoring that, many users like their communities to remain focused on a given topic. Moderation allows this to happen without requiring a vetting process prior to posting. Maybe you don’t want that, but most users do.

    Find a better way.

    Here’s an option: you can code a fork or client that automatically parses the modlog, finds comments and posts that have been removed, and makes them visible in your feed. You could even implement the ability to reply by hosting replies on a different instance or community.

    For you and anyone who uses your fork, it’ll be as though they were never removed.

    Do you have issues with the above approach?


  • As a user, you can:

    • Review instance and community rules prior to participating
    • Review the moderator logs to confirm that moderation activities have been in line with the rules
    • If you notice a discrepancy, e.g., over-moderation, you can hold the mods accountable and draw attention to it or simply choose not to engage in that instance or community
    • Host your own instance
    • Create communities in an existing instance or your own instance

    If you host your own instance and communities within that instance, then at that point, you have full control, right? Other instances can de-federate from yours.













  • The rules text says it creates an area of darkness, and with your interpretation, it doesn’t, which means your interpretation is wrong. Yes, the ability could be written more clearly, but the logic for a reasonable way for it to function follows pretty cleanly. Your interpretation is not RAW or RAI.

    There’s a reply on RPG StackExchange that covers a similar line of logic to what I wrote above.

    Remember that Fifth Edition D&D is intentionally not written with the same exacting precision as games like M:tG. The game doesn’t have an explicit definition of magical darkness, but it’s pretty clear that the intent is for magical to trump mundane (when it comes to sources of light and darkness). Even the Specific Beats General section says that most of the exceptions to general rules are due to magic.


  • White straight able bodied men age 25-64

    25-36 is still “young” by their definition.

    and a union doesn’t exist in their industry (as far as they know)

    It doesn’t matter what industry you’re working in if you’re interested in that industry having a union. Making unions more commonplace was part of the point. The second sentence in the Union Members and Families section reads “Democrats will make it easier for workers, public and private, to exercise their right to organize and join unions.”

    But sure, if you don’t believe unions have value, this wouldn’t include you.

    Fuck 'em lol. Wait are they religious, rural, a business owner, or a veteran? No? Ok yeah fuck 'em!

    You and I must have different definitions of “fuck ‘em,” because I clearly said:

    Economically, Democratic policies favor poor and middle class people, which statistically makes up the majority of all white men. And there aren’t any policies that oppress white people or men the way that Republican policies oppress women or reduce support for all of the groups that Democratic policies help support.

    So sure, if you’re a white man with wealth that puts you in the top 1%, the Republican’s economic policies will be better for you. For the other 99% of white men - no. And for the specific issues called out in the original post linked (on Reddit):

    1. Men account for 75% of suicides in the US
    2. 70% of opioid overdose deaths are men
    3. Men are 8 times more likely to be incarcerated than women
    4. Young men are struggling in schools and are increasingly the minority at universities, opting out of higher education
    • 1 is addressed under “Investing in Mental Health” in the Party Platform as well as indirectly by gun safety policies (since 50% of suicides are by gun, 60% of gun deaths are suicides, and 87% of gun suicides are committed by men)
    • 2 is explicitly addressed under “Faith Community (“respond to the opioid crisis”) and under “Beating the Opioid Epidemic” in the Party Platform.
    • 3 is addressed under “Criminal Justice” in the Party Platform
    • 4 is addressed in multiple ways, under “Good Jobs” (“you shouldn’t have to go to a four-year college to live a good, middle-class life.”) and under “Education” (investing in K-12 education, providing free, universal preschool, investing in other forms of secondary education - e.g., trade schools, community college, registered apprenticeships)

    Democrats need to work on their messaging, obviously (and the comments on the Reddit post touch on that), but the problem isn’t that their policies don’t help white men, because they obviously do.