more like wokémon

We live in a society

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

You can also get carrots and potatoes from zombie drops.

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.

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.

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.

Saying “you are not allowed here” is a step up from saying “this isn’t meant for you”

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?

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.

I had never seen that before, thank you

I like spending time with my friends when I am in the mood to socialize. I want to be able to opt in to hanging out. Needing to improv a conversation outside my “office hours” is frustrating.

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.

I first encountered Sandra Ann Shaw in 2018 in a Walgreens when she stuffed a bag of M&Ms into her pants and walked out. I was in awe of her brilliant financial strategy of not paying for things! I’ve followed her financial wisdom ever since and without her I wouldn’t be where I am today (prison)

Can’t speak on Chicago but Madison has a lot of very active residents. There are a lot of popular bike paths, parks, and walking trails throughout it. They also have UW and Epic and are small enough for that they have a meaningful influence in making the population skew younger. So it makes sense that its population would generally be healthier than other cities’. There is a lot more alcoholism though.

C’mon, he probably is leaving important details out, but “if people treat him badly, he must deserve it” is hardly fair.

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.

PJ does this a lot. The original post article was claiming that SA was being used as a ‘genocidal strategy’, which is an extremely bold claim and would need to show not only evidence of SA happening, but a coordinated and premeditated intent in order to drive Israelis from Israel.

No, the article stated “Israeli legal and gender experts” are claiming something like that, as reflected in the title. It also mentions “Hamas has denied its forces committed sexual violence against women or mistreated female hostages.” The article is reporting on the claim, the evidence used to support it, and the limited amount the UN has actually been able to verify. It distinctly doesn’t confirm it, because as you pointed out the burden of proof is high and doing so would be very irresponsible when it cannot be substantiated. PJ meanwhile doesn’t claim anything more than the article does, at least in their post. In fact, it looks like the entire post including the title is directly lifted from the article.

The pull-quotes PJ is pointing to are acknowledging instances of SA - and really only acknowledging what little evidence beyond first-person accounting there is - but explicitly not ‘systemic and coordinated’ SA.

Agreed, neither article proves the Israeli claim. The UN report does disprove the Hamas claim that none of their forces are committing sexual violence, but it does not prove that it is systemic as the Israeli group asserts. That is an important distinction. I haven’t seen PJ actually claim that it was systemic but they could be implying it by seemingly trying to use that quote as a contradiction to OP saying that it’s an Israeli lie.

OP was pointing this out, even in his replies with PJ that he linked. PJ was ignoring the distinction and trying to bait a stronger reaction, and ended up banning OP as a result.

It’s true that PJ didn’t acknowledge the distinction. They may not have realized that was the source of the pushback. But regardless, I still don’t think that’s enough to say the ban was retaliatory. Mass-downvoting a community’s posts is reason enough to ban someone from it. It’s essentially brigading and even one user can be pretty disruptive with small communities. That’s why I wanted to know if OP had been acting in a way that qualifies for a legitimate ban or not.

PJ has been on a tear the last few days, and was clearly not in a place to be acting as a mod. He’s been starting fights and baiting people all week and deserves some mandatory time off.

I don’t follow Lemmy politics enough to remember much of PJ’s history other than that they are a big enough contributor to be a familiar name and that they were involved in some drama with 196. If they’re going through something recently that’s making them lash out, then I hope it gets better soon. They didn’t seem particularly irritable from this interaction though.

Yeah the door face is where the buttons and floor indicator are typically. Plus, other people might join the elevator before you get to your floor. Assuming you would rather be facing them then showing them your back it makes sense to turn around right away.

There are some social conformity experiments on youtube about getting people to face the “wrong” way though.