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
My argument isn't we shouldn't do it because it's hard and messy, it's that we shouldn't do it because it irrevocably harms the community and society so the community and society has a right to try and stop it.
It does serve people, if that father fails the suicide attempt or gets busted by the cops before he can duel, then we can put him in treatment and try and help him out which can keep him alive and supporting his family. If we just throw our hands up and say "you do you" and he gets himself killed for sure then there's no helping him or his family.
Your seems like an argument against having laws against anything then. Yeah people are going to do crimes, that doesn't mean we as a society shouldn't try and dissuade them from doing it.
If you go by this logic why shouldn't we have ash trays in bars? Sure we as a society think smoking in bars is a nuisance, but some people are going to do it any way so why make it messier and more complicated for them? Should we not even have laws in place banning smoking indoors?
Laws and rules also have a normative function as well. An indoor smoking ban isn't really enforced by the state, and not even by the bartender as much, it's enforced by everyone at the bar who understands it's a nuisance and will yell at you if you do it. We as a society shame those who break the rules, and we should be shaming people who do extremely selfish acts like suicide or dueling. If it were allowed and normal more people would engage in these acts as there's less of a cost to them.
this is such a false equivalence argument its painful. cigarette smoke materially harms others directly. subjecting someone to your cigarette smoke violates their bodily autonomy unless they consent to breathe your second hand smoke and take on the associated harms. someone committing suicide doesnt harm anyone directly. youre saying them dying is bad for the people in their life because they support them so they should be pressured to stay alive and be actively prevented from dying so they can continue to provide benefit to others.
thats literally the argument pro lifers use against abortion. women revoking their material support of their unborn child in most cases leads to its death, so they argue women should be forced to carry it to term, violating their bodily autonomy. youre arguing the same thing for people who want to die. their life benefits others who may die or be worse off without them so they should be compelled to continue existing against their will.
fuck that. anyone who argues that position is on the slippery slope to supporting slavery. you dont get to sacrifice peoples bodily autonomy because it might be good for fucking society. youre fucking wrong and nothing you can say will convince me such a callous position is right. people have the right to die if they choose to, and people like you make exercising that right worse for everyone.
For abortion I wouldn't argue a fetus is a part of society. If you deny it care then I have no problem with that. If you deny a child care though that's neglect and we as a society should step in to ensure that child gets a good upbringing. Same with child support, if we're going for the full libertarian personal freedom principle then a deadbeat dad has no obligation to his children and should be free to abandon them. His actions aren't directly physically harming the child so he should be able to do what he wants.
Abandoning your child is shunting your responsibilities and putting real costs on society .
Do you recognize any case where societal duty trumps bodily autonomy or is that always a slippery slope to slavery?
I think that moral view is too value hierarchical and Deontological, reliant on rules, such as bodily autonomy always trumps societal duty.
While this is true in a lot of cases, such as drug use and abortion, there are some cases where it isn't. One of them pertaining directly to slavery is the civil war. How does Lincoln end slavery without violating the bodily autonomy of millions of men to fight a war with the south? If we follow the rule that bodily autonomy trumps societal duty then a draft can never be justified, and then the north loses the war and my ancestors are enslaved for way longer then they needed to be.
Of course a draft is not always justified, we shouldn't be violating the bodily autonomy of millions of men to fight communists in vietnam. This is where deontology fails as the ethics of something like a draft are based more on the specifities of the case rather then any general rule or hierarchy of values.
This is where a more dialectical approach to ethics is valuable. We can recognize the values of bodily autonomy and societal duty in tension. They are in conversation and sometimes one is more relevant to the situation while other times the other value is.
So in the case of suicide we can look at the harm it's doing to society against the value of bodily autonomy. If that person has no societal value or obligations, say a retired person, then sure there bodily autonomy can be more important and they should be able to kill themselves. But if there value to society and there dependents and obligations are greater then I say there can be cases where societal duty trumps bodily autonomy.
Just curious, what's your position on vaccinations?
vaccines are great and awesome and i wish there were more and i could get them. no one is being forced against their will to get vaccinated. people who refuse for nonmedical reasons are a danger to others, directly, not in some hypothetical society might be better off way. just like someone else who brought up smoking which also harms others directly. they should be barred from certain places for not getting them yeah. that doesnt violate their bodily autonomy. they can choose not to they just wont be able to do certain things or go certain places because they are a danger to others. you can choose to smoke you just wont be allowed to do it where you will hurt people.