this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2023
90 points (100.0% liked)

196

16504 readers
12 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Rule

all 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dnick@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This could be a great platform, but almost completely ruined by an unnecessarily pretentious font.

[–] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 30 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Is this better?

Is this better?

I like the other one because this one seems too sparse and I wasn't really shitposting for legibility.

[–] Godnroc@lemmy.world 23 points 11 months ago

"shitposting for legibility" is the best thing I've heard today.

[–] Plum@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Pre-cise-ly.

[–] Donjuanme@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Too many times the left ignores #6, and asks the right why they don't do the same.

[–] skeezix@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Because for the right, it’s usually intentional, not a “mistake”. For them hurting and marginalizing certain people is the point.

[–] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

Plus, the left is far more likely to hold people accountable and own up to mistakes. Remember Al Franken? When was the last time a politician on the right did anything other than double-down or change the subject when faced with a scandal?

[–] Neato@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

How does #4 interact with laws on hate speech, harassment, etc?

[–] pory@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

I'd argue that fighting and punishing hate speech would be protected by Tenet II, which takes priority over "other laws".

[–] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Eh, the phrasing is a bit on the libertarian side for my liking (are we still doing phrasing?), but I like the sentiment. I take the "social contact" view of the Paradox of Tolerance, so speech and rhetoric that deprives others of their rights should not be protected, IMHO.

Plus, this is designed more as a personal code of ethics rather than system of government, so I'm not really too worried about "enforcing" any of these. And since I personally don't see a conflict when it comes to limiting the speech of others if it is inciting violence or encouraging discrimination, I think it's ok the way it's written.

But hey, to thine own ~~stuff~~ self be true. Write your own version if you like and share it around.