important note - the west bank is not gaza and Hamas has never been in charge in the west bank. the only thing that makes this lynch mob feel justified in its violence is the race of its victims, and the only thing that makes them feel confident they’ll get away with it is that the state of Israel sent armed men to protect them while they carry out their terrorism. This makes Israel an openly-racist terrorist state.
While the West Bank is not Gaza, there are a lot of Hamas operands there and terror attacks in the name of Hamas happen there a lot
The Israeli army and border patrol is attacked on a daily bases by the settlers there, second only to the Arab terrorists there
Terror attack means that there was apolitical motive, which there was none, it was an attempt to rescue a 14 yo boy kidnapped yesterday (who’s beat up body was found today)
It’s not a lynch mob. It is a genocidal onslaught for capturing land. This is not some emotional reaction. It is a decade lasting strategy of ethnic cleansing carried out by state supported Israeli militias, often directly aided by the formal Israel army in an occupied territory.
We only now get more attention to it, because of the 07. October, but this has been happening for decades and it only ever got worse over the years, because the US and western allies have actively endorsed this. They endorsed this by saying that this is illegal and shouldn’t happen, while singing off on the next billions of military aid and arms deals.
If Tourette’s involves a compulsion to say socially inappropriate things, what happens if those things don’t turn out to be socially inappropriate? Does the compulsion switch to something else? Does it fade?
I think it goes to something else. The (relatively uncommon) compulsion is caused by an issue with the part of your brain that inhabits those thoughts that you don’t normally even notice.
So it’s like the brain occasionally hits the gas pedal when aiming for the break.
It’s part of what makes it so distressing for people who have it, since it tends towards the things they don’t want to say.
Both I believe. There are things that come up in your brain that get tossed before “you” are even aware of it.
Like, when you see a person all the different words you know of that could be associated with them get “activated” as your brain comprehends the details.
You see a man wearing jeans and you know he’s wearing jeans, but you don’t think to yourself “blue pants”. It’s not relevant.
I believe it just gravitates toward whatever you know you shouldn’t say in the moment. Sort of like a “call of the void” for social situations that manifests as a tic that you can only avoid for so long.
I remember seeing a documentary or news piece or something about a woman who pivoted hers to “BISCUIT!” I really hope that was real. But I don’t remember how she got there, like if she had to trick herself that “biscuit” was offensive.
One day I came back from school convinced that “ratatouille” was a bad word (before the movie) and I kept saying it my mom, she was happy that it was that innocent
That’s not what tourettes is actually. It can take a number of forms.
I went on a date with a guy that had it and he just frequently vocalized small grunts. I have to admit it was a little uncomfortable at first but I got used to it while we watched a movie in bed. I didn’t meet him again though, because the sex was very bad, but I think that’s unrelated to tourettes.
Edit to elaborate: Whether or not this specific one is real, it perfectly illustrates the hypocrisy of trans ally neoliberals who persecute and punish unhoused people for existing near them.
Sometimes fiction and altered objects depict abstract concept better than real physical objects do and neoliberals tend not to say the quiet parts loudly like the fascist party on the other side of the aisle has increasingly been doing in recent years.
Do you not recognize that this is deceitful? I understand how fiction can present allegories to demonstrate real world themes. But this isn’t that. This is meant to portray reality and real life hypocrisy but is not actually real.
Because the hypocrites do an effective job at explaining away and obfuscating their hypocrisy. This makes it clear in an way that literal reality doesn’t.
The rich people weren’t literally eating the babies of poor people when Jonathan Swift wrote A Modest Proposal, but that doesn’t mean that his point about their callous disregard for those less fortunate was fraudulent.
Satire is not deceitful. You’re not meant to read A Modest Proposal and think rich people are eating poor babies. You’re meant to recognize the allegory and what it says about our real world.
This post is not satire. It is meant to deceive you into believing it is a real photo.
Nobody said that it physically exists. That’s a claim that you inferred.
I repeat: nowhere in the OP or even in the comments does anyone say that it physically exists. The lie you keep complaining about is of your own invention.
Satire is found in many artistic forms of expression, including internet memes, literature, plays, commentary, music, film and television shows, and media such as lyrics.
I think I understand. You think it is misinformation. But it would only be misinformation if the underlying message isn’t true. This might help.
It depends on whether the viewer thinks this represents the hypocrisy of trans ally neoliberals who persecute and punish unhoused people for existing near them.
It’s like this real photo from the Black Lives Matter protests:
By your definition, there is no difference between deceptive fake news stories and satire. My Facebook wall in 2016 was filled with true news stories and satire and nothing else. You could post whatever lies you want so long as there’s some underlying truth in there.
Then when called out just say it’s satire! You can say pizza gate wasn’t meant to be taken literally. It was just satire pointing out how the elites and lawmakers are abusing our children. Q Anon and Stephen Colbert are two the greatest satirists of our time.
With the advancements of AI, we are going to start seeing more and more fake things that are indistinguishable from reality. If most of the people are convinced the fake thing is literally real, and even if that was the intention of the post, it will still be considered satire because the underlying message is true.
I’m going to assume you don’t believe neoliberal trans allies are being hypocritical about systemic oppression when they advocate for trans rights while shunning the rights of the houseless.
If that is the case, it’s understandable that you would see this post as deceptive misinformation.
But if you understand that systemic oppression affects all intersectional minority groups under capitalism, then you might interpret the post as biting satire.
Just because I don’t understand quantum entanglement doesn’t make it any less real.
Was Stephen Colbert deceptive in the Colbert Report and misinforming the public with fake news? Or was he using satire to inform the public of the hypocrisy of conservative language?
Hmm, biting satire or deceptive misinformation. It’s a personal choice! According to your definitely of satire, you can make up whatever lies you want so long as you believe there’s an underlying truth.
I’ll agree to disagree on that. If the intent is to make you believe the fake thing is real, then it isn’t satire. It doesn’t matter if you or they believe there is truth. It is deception and whatever underlying truth you hoped to convey is lost in the lie.
It depends on whether the underlying message is true. If the viewer thinks it is a lie, it’s misinformation. If they think it is true, it is satire. Is the underlying message in this post true?
It seems clear that you don’t think it is true. Others think it is, and see it as satire. The question that begs to be asked is, “Why do they think it is true?”
I happen to be in full agreement about the hypocrisy people are identifying.
However, I believe your definition of “satire” leaves so much gray area to make it a useless word. Pizza gate is satire according to your definition. Q Anon is satire. All the lies republicans spread about democrats is satire.
I’m not willing to accept that and I expect better from the content that supports my ideology.
Pray tell, what satirical truth was Pizza Gate and Q-Anon elucidating? Were there Democrats feasting on the adrenochrome of infants in a basement of a pizza restaurant? No? Then it is “deceptive,” and thus misinformation. Is President Biden a cloned actor that is trying to instate a One World Government? No? Then it is misinformation and deception.
Deception seeks to subvert or mask the truth. Satire seeks to comically demonstrate the truth. Satire can’t be untruthful, or else it ceases to be satire and becomes just a lie. This post, if truthful, can’t be a lie; thus, it is satire.
Pray tell, what satirical truth was Pizza Gate and Q-Anon elucidating? Were there Democrats feasting on the adrenochrome of infants in a basement of a pizza restaurant?
No?
In your opinion. Others have different opinions. Satire can be whatever the viewer wants it to be apparently…
If you think this is satire, then that’s fine for you. I think at best it is a crappy attempt at satire that muddles whatever point they wanted to convey. At worst it is a lie meant to appeal to the homophonic Facebook (pardon the slur) boomers looking to justify their ideology.
For me, if you want to call it satire, it better be obvious that the creator intended it to be taken as satire and not truth.
It might be bad satire. It could also be conservative disinformation. Truth can be subjective , dependent on culture and lived experiences. But we should never stop trying to discover Objective Truth for the sake of humanity. Our existence depends on it.
I think you and the others trying to pass off the same idea don’t seem to understand the problem here. It’s not that you can’t have satire, or fiction that acts as a social commentary. It’s that all of the examples you are mentioning aren’t trying to pass themselves off as reality . Nobody reads A Tale of Two Cities and thinks that it is literal. Or A Modest Proposal. This here is trying to pass itself off as real and as soon as it gets called out for it, the choir shows up to say “Oh, so we can’t have satire anymore”.
Tell that to the homeless people forced to play frogger across the interstate near where I live. And the entire working class neighborhood whose flood risk was ignored by the city for decades until this year because it got mostly destroyed.
Camping bans are persecution. Building shiny stuff instead of taking care of people is persecution. It’s not bold or in your face but it’s real.
Bruh what the fuck did trans people/trans allies have to do with the circumstances that created these issues? Stop using them as a scapegoat.
Anti homelessness is very real and very obvious but I’ve never seen a fucking pride parade advocating for the removal of safe spaces for the unhoused. I do regularly see politicians advocating for that shit though.
They pass laws protecting the rights of LGBTQ people (Which is awesome). And then they pass laws to criminalize homelessness while they profit off the current state of real estate. (Not awesome)
In my experience, the politicians that are out there passing laws to criminalize homelessness are usually the ones that are more outspoken against the rights of LGBTQ people. In any case, trans people’s existence has nothing to do with anti homeless laws. Stop trying to conflate the two.
They are both oppressed minority groups under capitalism. This is utilized under the class system to make oppressed minority groups within the system compete with each other for rights.
To go further, hypothetically, the Democrats may advocate for rights for dog lovers while making laws against the cat fans, while Republicans might advocate for the cat fans, while making laws against dog lovers. In that way, the government makes citizens vie for rights while diminishing class unity.
Well yeah, that’s the point. They’re two different issues and people who support trans people do not necessarily support other oppressed groups. I’ve been trying to point that out this entire time.
The hypocrisy of who? The fucking politicians that fund this type of shit?
WHO ARE WE MAKING FUN OF
The liberals, politician and civilian alike, who support LGBTQ+ people’s right to exist without harassment but also are in favor of persecuting and punishing homeless people for existing near them.
Like for example New York Mayor and once a cop always a cop Eric Adams who is in favor of both marriage equality and (not much short of) hunting the homeless for sport.
True, but it’s evidently FAR too hard for anyone with power to not have at least one truly awful one, based on the fact that almost none of them manage it…
to be fair, i think statistically, given the amount of opinions that it is possible to hold, that you are pretty likely to hold at least one objectively shitty opinion.
True, but I’m talking specifically of consequential opinions that profoundly affect the lives of others, not small stuff like not liking black liquorice 😉
i suppose so, but even then, there are just a lot of opinions you can hold. Politics being a massive one. For example, in my opinion, i believe that having any sort of party affiliation is just objectively wrong.
I mean that someone saw hostile architecture and then decided to photoshop a trans flag over it for political reasons.
We, as strangers, will never know their exact motivation, but I think if their idea was a message regarding the unfair treatment of economically disadvantaged people or neoliberal hypocrisy, there would be much better ways to communicate the issue, that don’t involve something that can easily be construed as anti-trans messaging.
It’s a bit vibes based, but you know… people ain’t robots, and even if that wasn’t the original intent, that’s how the message comes across. And I’d rather have a better, more poignant statement that’s worth repeating, rather than this, perhaps unintentionally, bad one.
Especially because people will take this at face value and there are more photoshopped images just like this, making the whole thing a bit sussy, imo.
I’m an entire person, not a single-sided strawman. I edited my reply to also state that I think neolibs suck too, if that helps to unflatten my thoughts on this a bit. And because I think they do.
I’d also like to add that I’ve seen this image and others like it posted in anti-progressive groups by anti-progressive people, instilling exactly the message I explained earlier. Which is why I say the message either isn’t clear, or just bad.
I don’t feel like I’m “gasping at straws”. I feel my argument is somewhat reasonable and I hope my point is a little clearer now.
I still believe that your interpretation is unreasonable and mine is much more likely regardless of your anecdotal experience in anti-progressive groups, but I apologize for unfairly assuming bad intent on your part. Have a nice day!
If I had to take a guess at the motivations, I think someone saw the spikes as well as the equality sign in the window and took a picture because that’s kinda a juxtaposition. But I’m guessing that didn’t give enough “zing” that would be noticed as an internet post, so they edited the trans flag on the spikes to make it less subtle.
You’re at the top of my comment chain, so I’m replying to agree with you and take this further.
Whoever photoshopped this and the other one with the park bench that’s floating around is trying to pit liberals against each other by making it seem like fighting for trans rights and fighting to house the unhoused are opposed to each other.
Sure, except I’m in California where it is two very different fights. Try reversing any LGBTQ Rights and you’ll get tarred and feathered. Suggest the Homeless shouldn’t be hunted in the streets and you also get tarred and feathered.
It’s like living in reverse land where instead of “fiscal responsibility” and “traditional social values”; we have “fiscal responsibility” and “progressive social values”.
Damn, didn’t realize conservatives put that little amount of thought into their political statements.
Literally the best result here is someone goes “yeah, that’s politicians for you, pretending to do something, by displaying something, but actually doing something else” If anything, this is basically commentary on how shitty politics is. More than whatever the fuck anyone else thinks it could possibly be.
They are already. Antisemitic violence has been on the rise here since October 7. Antisemites see Israel do a thing and think “I know, let’s hurt some Jews”
Protesting Israel is considered antisemitism in Germany even if you’re Jewish. Real antisemitism is also on the rise but all pro-Palestinian protests are also lumped in. Anti-Zionist jews (Jewish Voice for Peace, etc) always on the forefront of these marches.
Heartbleed isn’t new either. It’s from years ago. It’s also unrelated to the xz backdoor. Maybe you should get some rest. Check your carbon monoxide alarms are working. If not see a doctor. It sounds like you are having memory issues.
I like that even a well paying job sounds ridiculous when paid out in equivalent hashbrowns. Look at Mr. IT over there, earning over fifteen hashies an hour. Must be nice eating so many hashies, yum yum.
Bezos made 7.9 million an hour, so converted to the new metric, he’s eating 2.25 million hashbrowns an hour. Seems a bit excessive, you’re definitely going to have indigestion.
Ignoring the fact that hardly any plastic is actually recyclable in the first place, your argument is that conscious consumers should accept additional responsibilities on the off chance that it MIGHT actually get recycled?
We figured out how to print on basically any surface a long time ago. How about we hold companies to a standard of responsible packaging, instead of yet again passing the buck to the end user.
that is 1 of the 2 infuriating parts. always remember it is possible to hold two truths at once, that a) consumers can take some part in environmental responsibility and b) that we should also hold corporations accountable
We need both. We need companies to do more to make things out of easier to recycle or compost materials, and we need consumers to do more to separate things to make them easier to recycle. It’s far too late to push responsibilities around, we all need to be responsible.
My point was that it’s not necessary, and the practice increases the likelihood that the entire bin will be thrown out because some consumer didn’t peel them off. Then the company gets to say “we told them to do it, it’s not our fault!”
I do peel these off, but I also think that they are irritating and actively hinder the problem at hand.
Almost every thermoplastic is recyclable easily, though not necessarily profitably (because the new materials are so cheap).
Recycling that PET bottle into a different usable object would involve cleaning it, cutting it into a shape appropriate for your chosen remanufacturing process (filament or flakes), heating it to melted but not too hot, then forming (fdm, molding, etc.).
My guess would be that getting a durable graphic printed on PET is more difficult since we don’t see that, and adhesive or wrapped labels are almost certainly more expensive than printing would be if it were easy.
Edit to add: I agree that more responsibility needs to be on the manufacturer, but don’t buy into the misinformation that plastic can’t be recycled. Make it more expensive to use new plastic than recycled material.
Printing “this shit is milk” on a bottle is dirt cheap. It’s practically free. They probably already do it with the expiration date.
Problem is, some bright-eyed fuckfuck at PepsiCo realized they could sell more shit using labels with no visible dot matrix and a color palette with vomit-inducing vibrancy and 69 million shades. Approximately 90 seconds later, everyone else decided that they need to wrap their plastic in some plastic to “stay competitive”. The industry collectively stuffed some lunch money in Ronald H. W. Gore’s titty pocket, and here we are, decades later, with a mountain of unrecyclable garbage that no one even knew couldn’t be recycled. And it’s not even their fault, for the same exact reason we don’t expect people to know not to lick the lead paint off their mid-20th century coffee mugs.
Printing on bottles is a thing. Even in vomit-inducing vibrancy and 69 million shades. Problem is, it inhibits line speed. Higher line speed = more money.
You forgot about polymer shortening. During the first synthesis process from petroleum to the usual type of plastic, long polymer bonds are formed which give the plastic its malleable-yet-durable characteristics. During shredding to get the plastic into a more feedable shape (as in feedable through a hopper into an extruder to be melted) those polymers are shortened. This polymer shortening ends up leading to a more brittle plastic, and because of this new plastic beads are added to rejuvinate.
Because of this, recycling plastic inherently requires new plastic in its process, and old plastic is only recyclable for a few cycles until its essentially garbage being mixed into the process.
We are essentially just pushing out the inevitable, which will be that we’ll need to dispose of massive amounts of plastic waste that is unusable after a few cycles. I imagine we’ll eventually just have to compress this waste into blocks and bury those blocks deep underground like nuclear waste.
Didn’t forget, that just isn’t relevant to the assertion that “plastic can’t be recycled”. The second use of the plastic doesn’t have to be a form which requires the exact same properties as the initial use. The remains of a bottle don’t have to be remade into another bottle. There are still nearly infinite possible uses for the plastic.
Say it with me now: Fuck the family income metric!
FUCK THE FAMILY INCOME METRIC!
how many millions of single people/perpetually single people are out there? We’re defining the economic health of our population by a metric that demands a dual income. So yes, 2x the typical salary is enough for a person to get by on. 2 people have to share resources to make ends meet.
For someone like myself who is perpetually and indefinitely single, working full time in a psudo-managment position, it’s beyond insulting that I’m “forced” to live in people’s basements or garages if I want to keep the slightest glimmer of hope of retirement… A “legitimate” apartment would cost the entirety of my income not even the sadly “typical” 3/4ths.
(don’t castrate me for the management thing lol. I’m not the coffee holding office whip cracker, I’m working directly along side my team in a factory doing most of the heavy lifting so they don’t need to.)
What older folk often forget is that not only could they easily afford a house in the 60s and 70s, but they likely also could on a single income. Many people nowadays are having trouble affording a house on dual incomes.
Housing keeps going up and couples are now having to split them with other couples just to raise a family. My sister and her fiance live in the basement of a house where his brother and sister-in-law live upstairs with a toddler and twins on the way. They won’t have enough room soon and can’t afford anything larger, and my sister wants to start having kids soon but the basement isn’t exactly larger either.
That’s one house for 4 working adults and potentially 4 children, when back in the day you could have a full house with 2 adults and 3-4 children on a single income.
My grandpa worked as a landscaper/gardener and was still able to support his stay-at-home wife and 3 children.
As a fifty year old I would like to point out that I did not officially reach legal age (18) until the 1990’s. I am “older”. Who you mean are what we colloquially refer to as “old as fuck”.
People with healthy egos are able to register that someone does not want them as a romantic partner without having a crisis, yes.
I see I’ve upset some users today. This may seem like stating the obvious but clearly some people here need to hear it:
If you are emotionally devastated by rejection you likely do not have a healthy ego or self-image. This is the confidence part.
Assigning responsibility for fixing your self-image to a potential romantic partner is seeking external validation for an internal problem.
No amount of external validation will fix you. It will only feed the unhealthy expectations you’re already acting on.
Confidence is the external display of a healthy self-image (overconfidence is another example of external display of an unhealthy self-image).
Potential partners can sense your desperation for validation and it is not an attractive personality trait. It’s basically saying “I need you to do this emotional labor for me because I am not strong enough”.
I don’t think this is your intent, but likely the reason people are annoyed by your comments is they come off as “have you tried NOT having emotional trauma?”. You might not mean them that way, but that’s how they read as an outsider to all this. Whether or not your strategy is a good one, dismissing people’s emotional experiences is never going to win anyone over or change minds. If you’d like to help people gain confidence, I would encourage you to meet them where they are, not where you are.
Surely there exists a middle ground between being devastated by rejection and not registering continuous rejection as, perhaps, a sign that the rejectors have a point.
Emotional resilience is great, but if people keep giving you the same feedback maybe they have a point (and you should try changing, rather than brute forcing your way through social interactions, hoping to get lucky).
I’m not saying that you’re denying this, so I am jumping over some discussion, but tbf I think we’re both doing it.
Yeah, everyone here is like, “If you can’t handle rejection, then you’re WEAK and LACK CONFIDENCE! And you’re the ONLY ONE! Everyone else in the world is strong & emotionally bulletproof except for YOU!”
Why not assume they are having a bad day, they are just out of a previous relationship and they want a break, your just not their type (even if you had all the abs and a chiseled jaw and confidence they wouldn’t be interested), what if they aren’t into your gender, or what if they are in a committed relationship with their horse?
There are a lot of things that can cause it to be a no deal that are not your fault. If you feel like you did a good job asking, then it is probably one of the above.
And yet every other comment on this post is “just have confidence; change how you act and look and you’ll stop being rejected.”
It’s so silly to keep acting like attractiveness has zero to do with dating and likeability. Especially when there are permanent issues that are genetic or medical or whatever that go beyond “get a haircut and buy new clothes.” American society is super judgemental in general when it comes to appearance and aging (especially toward women), and identity. It gets much worse in the dating scene, especially now that it’s so frequently based on swiping left or right on a single photo and you’re competing with filters. Yes, there’s always the possibility of finding a group of people or a person that you fit in with, and you should always put work into finding that (if that’s something you want - not everyone wants to be paired off) but let’s stop throwing realism completely out the window ffs.
It could be, which is why my comment “friends, family, therapy” is useful, I think. If you’re noticing a pattern that’s upsetting you that you think could be an issue, talk with your friends, family, and a therapist about it. It can be difficult to identify issues we bring to relationships. It also might not be anything to do with you, though, so that’s where the support from others can prevent a bad pattern of beating ourselves up unnecessarily comes in.
Someone replied that therapy may be inaccessible, but now more than ever there are tons of sliding scale therapists, groups, etc that can meet in person or online, even for free. And honestly, I’m grappling with the issue myself that I need to prioritize my mental health and not let the monetary set back be an excuse. It’s an investment that will pay off
If romantic comedies have taught me anything, it’s to never take “no” for an answer, and it’s ok to stalk people because it will all just work out in the end when they realize what they’ve been missing this whole time.
This is unironically how my grandparents met, did help that my grandfather was rather intelligent and decently competent. Shame he was a dumbass and gave himself lung cancer, wear a mask when working with aerosols it may save your life.
You must honor a recipient’s opt-out request within 10 business days. You can’t charge a fee, require the recipient to give you any personally identifying information beyond an email address, or make the recipient take any step other than sending a reply email or visiting a single page on an Internet website as a condition for honoring an opt-out request
OP could probably threaten a lawsuit and their practices will change quickly. That’s assuming the company does business in the US…
edit: just realized this is stubhub. this smells like a lawsuit waiting to happen
When I’ve been in OP’s situation, I filed a complaint with the FCC, performed a whois lookup on their site to send emails to the abuse/spam emails of their DNS registrar and host and inspected the email headers to email their email provider’s abuse/spam account(s). I’ve not yet had cause to reach out to my attorney general’s office when I’ve had a company violate CAN-SPAM, but it’s an option.
I also make sure each company knows there’s a pending CAN-SPAM complaint. I keep it convivial, but serious. “Hey, just letting you know that one of your clients is violating your terms of service and the law! A complaint has already been lodged with the FCC. Toodeloo!”
That bit of knowledge tends to shift the interpretation of your complaint from “annoyed nerd” to “someone politely informing you that you’re going to get skull fucked by the long dick of the law if you don’t fix this ASAP”
It may sound sort of excessive, but I’m a bit of a consumer rights absolutist.
I’m currently fairly ill (likely RSV, if the expired COVID tests are to be believed) and this is day 6 of moderate to severe insomnia.
A state of semi-delirium must be a good look for me, because I have received more complements on my writing in the last 3 days than I have in the last several years.
The registrar can’t really do anything, and the service they use to receive email (what you’d see in the DNS MX record) is often totally different to the service used to send marketing emails. You’d need to look at the Received headers of the email to figure out where it was sent from. For example, a lot of companies use Office 365 or G Suite for corporate emails, but something like Mailchimp or ConstantContact for marketing emails.
According to Knopfler, he was in New York City and had visited an appliance store. At the back of the store was a wall of televisions which were all tuned to MTV. Knopfler said that standing next to him, watching the TVs, there was a male employee, dressed in a baseball cap, work boots, and a checkered shirt, who was delivering boxes. As they were watching MTV, as Knopfler recalled, the man came out with lines such as, “What are those, Hawaiian noises?.. That ain’t workin’,” etc. Knopfler then requested a pen to write some of these lines down, and eventually put them to music.
Radio be recoiling at ‘little faggot’ then drop a ‘Hawaiian Noises’ @1.2x speed with the DJ talking over any intro like it’s not the same crime! who speeds up a song!?
The moderation on any platform is inconsistent and arbitrary, it’s done by humans after all
with lemmy it’s at least driven by volunteers as you say, and we have the option to switch or create our own community/instance if we don’t like the moderation 👍
lemmy.world
Top