First off, thanks for taking the time to reply.
No, the community doesn’t set the rules.
There’s setting the rules and there’s discussing the rules. Am I understanding correctly that you would not allow a reasonable discussion with the members of the communities you moderate where they can give input regarding which rules they prefer?
Be aware I may quote you on this :)
Hence my verdict of “YDI” for the OP.
@[email protected] - are reasonable [Meta]/[Discussion] posts fine to discuss what the community prefers for rules & similar on /c/[email protected]?
I haven’t seen one either, but then again, I haven’t seen one in most other communities. Jordanlund is definitely PTB-y and abrasive in general, but give it a [Meta] or [Discussion] tag, open the discussion and make your case. If he shuts the discussion down by just removing the post/banning you I’ll definitely move it over to a PTB verdict.
In this case YDI since them’s the rules. If you want things changed maybe make a meta post to discuss it on the comm, see what the people think?
This might be uncomfortable for you to hear, but the substance of this sentence is a xenophobic.
I disagree. There is a difference between general xenophobia and being (quite justifiably) wary of cultures that are a threat to you or others due to identity. The fact is that cultures exist which are highly misogynistic, oppressive towards minorities, supremacist or even racist - and yes, religion is intertwined in culture.
Frankly, it is far too often that behaviours & opinions which would otherwise be considered extreme, unacceptable or threatening are excused as being part of someones’ culture.
We must hold everyone to the same standards in these regards. It is important to realize that many core morals which we value (ex. gender equality, freedom of expression, bodily autonomy etc.) are an aspect of culture and not a shared human belief. They must be championed and defended, both nationally and internationally.
People can learn and change, regardless of their origin, and cultures can develop over time. Better make sure it’s in the direction of humanism, tolerance and benevolence rather than regression into medieval dogma. (Yes, that includes US style christian resurgence, Islamic religious doctrine and British hooligan culture).
I’m for - whilst I’m aware lemmy votes are attainable via one mean or another, opting out sends a message that whilst yes, it is possible to attain voting information, it should not be considered normal and socially acceptable to do so.
so ?
To make it extra clear. I don’t want to be subjected to these kinds of regulations. They are an infringement upon my personal freedoms and my privacy.
I don’t want these regulations to exist. If they exist, I’d prefer they be unenforceable. If they try to enforce them, I’ll try to circumvent them.
The internet wants to be free.
Not Canadian, but the Canadian terminology described above is common in other parliamentary democracies as well.
In Sweden, where I live, members of parliament (ledamöter) will be said to be part of government if they are a member of one of the governing parties (these parties will have ministers in the government/cabinet), a supporting party if they voted in favour of the government (these parties do not have ministers in government but generally vote in favour of government propositions) and opposition if they abstained or voted against (these parties usually vote against government propositions).
Generally, MPs not member of the ruling parties will not be called “members of government”, particularly members of the opposition.
I think the issue here is simply not being familiar with politics & governance outside the US.
Alright, then I’ll do just that.
Here’s your reply @[email protected]