• 0 Posts
  • 20 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 9th, 2023

help-circle



  • The issue that caused this topic to arise wasn’t of other people having opinions we didn’t like. It wasn’t even a case of arguing in bad faith, eg deflecting truth, or disguising real intentions by making arguments the owner doesn’t believe for some other purpose (those are also bad, but generally don’t get such a response).

    The issue was specific moderator/instance-ownership censorship. People’s posts were being removed without warning when they were making respectful, good-faith arguments - that disagreed with the politics of lemmy.ml. Worse, they were attempting to be stealthy about this removal so that no one victimized by this censorship was aware of it.

    For reference, I’m gonna be a Biden voter. If someone posted “Biden is a piece of trash old man” then I’d disagree with them, but they’d have every right to put that opinion up.






  • I can even agree that for a lot of cartoony media, depicting people as animals can give it a really cool/cute style. A lot of people have fond memories of reading the Redwall books, which took that to a logical and mature extension. But, having close association to all of the sexual stuff is where it gets bizarre and unlikable.

    I’ll even go out on a limb; I really enjoyed Lauren Faust’s My Little Pony series. I thought there was some fun, inventive writing humor, good VA, and smooth animation; for a time. But there’s undeniably a ton of people that made obsession with that series really weird.








  • I wonder if you could contest this under the claim that you disagree with the valuation of your assets.

    Say your child made a finger painting that you hung on the fridge. Some kind of crazed, but highly respected/influential, art appraiser sees it on a visit and claims it’s worth $10,000,000. So you can’t have any communal benefits unless you sell it (but you don’t want to, because it’s your kid’s - not to mention actually selling it can be hard). Would there be no avenue to claim that the appraiser is an idiot, and it’s barely worth the paper it’s on?


  • I don’t think it necessarily needs active enforcement. It can be as simple as:

    Richy Rich: “So I claimed unemployment during my taxes, and no one stopped me! Bwa ha ha!”
    Moralistic Auditor: “Wait…you did?? That’s illegal! Screw it, I always hated you, I’m going to report you to the IRS!”
    IRS: “We’ve discovered you incorrectly claimed unemployment, thanks to an anonymous tip and brief investigation. Your punitive taxes have been quintupled.”

    You wouldn’t always catch everyone; that’s fine, as long as the cost of abusers is not outweighed by the savings of not verifying everyone.



  • I have to admit, this is the dilemma I see; no system - Democracy, Law, Businesses, achieve their goals if a huge number of its participants have ulterior motives. You can’t put 8 people in a room, and give them a “system” where they will move a ball from one side to the other, if 7 of them don’t want to move it.

    So while I hate the racists appearing on juries, I’m still not sure I’d use that as a justification against the practice.