196
Community Rules
You must post before you leave
Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).
Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.
Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.
Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".
Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.
Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.
Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.
Avoid AI generated content.
Avoid misinformation.
Avoid incomprehensible posts.
No threats or personal attacks.
No spam.
Moderator Guidelines
Moderator Guidelines
- Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
- Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
- When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
- Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
- Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
- Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
- Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
- Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
- Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
- Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
- Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
- Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
- First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
- Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
- No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
- Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
- Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.
view the rest of the comments
i think the issue with consent is that when power imbalences are involved, it becomes very hard to tell if it is actually present.
like someone whose needs are not met can be pressured into giving consent for things they do not actually consent to, in exchange for what they need most.
we really need to make sure that everyone is provided for and social power imbalences aren't too big, to make consent actually work.
Power is generally best off dissolved anyway.
There's not a realistic chance of that happening. There is a realistic chance of consent laws being changed to allow very easy access to assisted suicide and other things. One is a minor change to existing law, the other is a complete transformation of society. One belongs in real-world discussions of governmental policy, the other in political theory. When discussing the very real problems with consent and power imbalance in our real world, "just dissolve all power," is not a serious solution.
"Dissolve all power" is a good answer to the question, "what would an ideal society look like?" It's a very poor answer to, "how do we avoid coercion in our medical aid in dying programs?"
This doesn't really have anything to do with what you said, other than some assumptions you seem to be making that I'd like to push back on. Mostly, just the idea that things will continue to work the way they have in the future. Which they will not. We are in full-blown collapse right now, and there are NO policy changes that will make a lasting impact or can stop it from happening.
I just don't find building castles in the sky to be particularly productive. Will our environmental crises require major reforms to society? Yes. But if you think a climate crisis is the ideal time to finally produce the socialist utopia you dream of, you're insane. Crises like these historically lead to totalitarianism and reduced social mobility.
If your analysis doesn't start with, "let's start at the current state of the world and see how we can reform it," you're not being productive. We've been in this civilization game for 10,000 years. No one gets to start fresh with a blank slate. This is a relay race.
You're right, but you're also missing my point. The time to be productive is long past. There is no reforming our way out of this. We will experience the worst possible scenario before any of this gets any better. It is far more productive to learn and practice resilience at this point.
If an ideal socialist utopia is produced, it won't be something that any of us ever see, and we need to start getting a lot more comfortable with that idea, while also recognizing that none of it ever gets better without us right now learning the right things.
Sure, and there's not a realistic chance of reducing emissions to the point humanity avoids extinction either.
We have to destroy capitalism anyway if we want our grandchildren to have a chance at survival. Why not abolish other involuntary hierarchies while we're at it?
This all or nothing thinking is generally counterproductive to actual progress.
"All or nothing thinking" is also known as a paradigm shift. Or a revolution, when it comes to those thoughts becoming political reality. Those do in fact happen and often make things better.
I don't expect perfection. A society that prioritizes abolishing involuntary hierarchies is going to have a lot of issues. But it's going to be better for human survival than a society that prioritizes accumulation of capital.