KombatWombat
@KombatWombat@lemmy.world
- Comment on Anon goes home 3 days ago:
This feels like it could be turned into a poem without too much adjustment
- Comment on Lemmy be like 3 days ago:
Providing a counterexample to a claim is not whataboutism.
Whataboutism involves derailing a conversation with an ad-hominem to avoid addressing someone’s argument, like what you just did.
- Comment on Battlefield 6's beta has only been running for a day, but it's already suffering from a FPS curse with cheaters breaking out the wallhacks 5 days ago:
Yeah it’s not supported for my system so I can’t even launch it. But I was watching some friends stream it and it crashed for three out of four of them within two games. I don’t think any of us will be getting it after release.
- Comment on stupid sexy apples 1 week ago:
Probably not, but we still call non-dairy substitutes “milk” other than some countries that regulate the label. Language tends to go by what it resembles rather than the process to generate it.
- Comment on change_org 2 weeks ago:
We live in a society
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
Well I was trying to say something like “slightly a victim” but it didn’t sound right. So I thought saying they suffered a small injustice was close enough
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
Ban the people obfuscating. Don’t assume guilt based on gender.
Being discriminated from a community based on gender is a small injustice, but it is an injustice nonetheless. At the very least, it’s a policy choice worthy of discussion.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
If it’s predominantly the men making shit comments, it should be easy enough to identify and ban them. Assuming they will make a bad comment based on them being a man is simply bad moderation.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
The analogy doesn’t really fit though. Houses and parties are presumed to be invite-only by default. That’s not true for lemmy communities that federate with the general user base. It’s more like being told you can’t buy anything from a store after seeing others being able to do so.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
Saying “you are not allowed here” is a step up from saying “this isn’t meant for you”
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
Maybe we are missing some context. Did a target demographics’ contributions get drowned out by others in this or a similar community? Or are you only worried it could happen based on the demographics of the platform?
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
I expect in most online communities if you made a post like “As a windows user, I am looking into linux and have heard that some common apps don’t run well. Is that an issue you all run into much?” or “As a console gamer, I find myself envying some of the mods I see through Steam/Nexus and am thinking about switching platforms. Is it hard to get controllers working well in most games?” or something similar, you would be welcomed by the people there. You just need to be respectful and on-topic.
I imagine that community probably has frustrating behaviors that men do as a common topic. Having men reply about why they would do a particular behavior or the sorts of strategies that could get other men to stop it would be not only acceptable, but valuable. Silencing their voices without cause then does a disservice to not only those users, but to the community as a whole. By not letting men reply, you’d be criticizing a large group of people while also preventing any member of the group from having a chance to defend themselves.
You can try to justify discriminating a place, but it is a high bar to clear, especially on a core part of someone’s identity like gender. It’s akin to preemptively banning someone based on that characteristic. There’s a difference between “this is not for you” and “you are not allowed here”. I can only really think of that much restriction being necessary in a very private community where content can reasonably identify someone or the members are very vulnerable.
IIRC, r/BlackPeopleTwitter had country club threads where only users the mods had verified were black could participate in. So there’s probably a compromise to have restrictions on a post-by-post basis. As it stands, if they’re primarily banning the users that include “as a guy…” in their replies then they are really just selecting against the ones that are being upfront about it. I really don’t want to see another r/FemaleDatingStrategy develop and a big contributor for that toxicity was silencing diverse opinions.
- Comment on US education 2 weeks ago:
I had never seen that before, thank you
- Comment on Anon breaks up 2 weeks ago:
From the Wikipedia page, emphasis mine:
In the United States, a red flag law (named after the idiom red flag meaning “warning sign“; also known as a risk-based gun removal law,[1]) is a gun law that permits a state court to order the temporary seizure of firearms (and other items regarded as dangerous weapons, in some states) from a person who they believe may present a danger. A judge makes the determination to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question.[2] Refusal to comply with the order is punishable as a criminal offense.[3][4] After a set time, the guns are returned to the person from whom they were seized unless another court hearing extends the period of confiscation.[5][6][7]
Intuitively, it makes sense the police would not be able to search someone’s home for guns without a judge’s permission. It would be hard to say that there was a compelling emergency just from going through things that someone had said or things that had been said about them.
I didn’t see a federal supreme court case that ruled on red flag laws specifically, but it sounded like there were some state supreme court rulings that found them unconstitutional. So it is at least contentious whether they meet the strict scrutiny standard or not.
- Comment on Anon breaks up 3 weeks ago:
C’mon, he probably is leaving important details out, but “if people treat him badly, he must deserve it” is hardly fair.
- Comment on Anon breaks up 3 weeks ago:
The government is allowed to suppress your constitutional rights in cases where it’s narrowly tailored to a legitimate government interest (the strict scrutiny standard). This may seem suspect, but it allows the government to do things like prevent people from bringing guns into schools or planes, or spreading private information or harmful lies about others, or being overtly loud when their neighbors are trying to sleep. It does require a high burden of proof from the potential violating body, so it’s not done casually.
For red flag laws, I imagine temporarily seizing the guns of someone who a judge is convinced is a significant danger to themselves or others would meet this standard. From what the other commenter said, it sounds like it isn’t done casually in practice. We are missing parts of the story that may make it seem prudent.
- Comment on You'd need to calculate the compound interest 3 weeks ago:
5 million years, because bread tastes better than key
- Comment on moderation 4 weeks ago:
21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
- Comment on Cool Chickz 1 month ago:
my
ducksbarn owl chicks? in a row. ordered. disciplined. behaving predictably.your
duckskestrel chicks? scattered. in disarray. waddling aimlessly. desperate for a leader to impose structure.pathetic.
- Comment on Dune Awakening is Funcom’s fastest-selling game ever as new MMO crushes the studio’s previous records 1 month ago:
There is an unstuck button. It’s in the bottom left if you hit esc iirc. I’ve used it a few times.
- Comment on What are your approaches to donating? 1 month ago:
I second this. I am in a similar position as OP and now I donate to a fund through GiveWell (which is used by many people engaged in EA) directly since the start of this year. If you want your money to do the most good, look into them. They research and audit all kinds of charities and publish their findings on their site.
- Comment on What's the #1 most butthurt response you've had on here? 1 month ago:
I was defending someone who had their comment removed from Palestine@lemmy.ml for saying the governments of both Palestine and Israel had failed their people. Someone replied with
Leave it to a .world liberal piece of shit to rules lawyer in defense of a fascist collaborator
and later
Not in a community for the oppressed people, you fuckwit. Just from your comment I can tell you’re a white liberal male who has never had to deal with any sort of discrimination or oppression. Get the fuck out of here with that centrist “both sides” bullshit. You disgust me.
I wasn’t even being provocative or anything, so the personal attacks seemed out of nowhere. The only “rules lawyering” I did was saying criticizing a country’s leadership isn’t racism. And the so-called “fascist collaborator” spent more time criticizing the Israeli government than Palestine’s.
- Comment on What's the #1 most butthurt response you've had on here? 1 month ago:
I think I remember seeing in a YPTB thread that a mod running several niche AI subs was preemptively banning people from their suite if they saw them express anti-AI sentiment elsewhere. So you probably weren’t the only one banned from that post.
- Comment on Interesting news 1 month ago:
Based.
- Comment on Vince always at it 2 months ago:
Bravo Vince
- Comment on Owned (stocks) 2 months ago:
You should sell plasma
- Comment on Screenshot of my current game! Lies of P 2 months ago:
Its name is wordplay in Korean, where P means blood. But it is weird when translated.
- Comment on I understand this will be controversial amoungst scrubs who never got gud 2 months ago:
I thought it was funny OP
- Comment on [deleted] 2 months ago:
It’s not racist. People accuse others of that term too flippantly. It is ignorant though.
Language changes a great deal over time, and slurs are no exception. What is a completely inoffensive label at some point can be a slur later on. What is a mild insult in one area can be much more severe somewhere else. Sometimes what was a slur can be reclaimed and become acceptable, even positive. But that can also depend on who is saying it and other contextual details. I don’t know anything about “k!wifarms” but I wouldn’t assume malicious intent without more information.
That example looks much like the No True Scotsman fallacy, since a word is redefined later to exclude what would be exceptions to their claim based on an added qualification. Person A also made Person B get the evidence to refute their claim rather than fulfilling the burden of proof themselves. I know it’s not a formal debate or anything, but even so, bad faith arguments are just rude. Just own the mistake and say “you’re right, I was only thinking of first world countries/liberal democracies/developed nations/whatever”.
- Comment on doctors 2 months ago:
Congratulations, that’s really impressive!