I’ve seen this story before. He’s doing important work.

This is the core problem with most analyses. People are emotional. Whoever pissed them off last might just be who they vote against. Or they may act out to hurt the party that’s least bad for them because they’re angry the most they’re willing to offer is to be less bad. It’s irrational, but no amount of complaining about irrationality is going to make it not true.

Seems like general military-industrial-complex stuff. In the initial phase of an open war, say against an island nation that totally has always been your territory, you could quite openly want to cut cables, and the patents kinda protect against another company being the one that profits from a new method of doing so. (I have no idea if the Chinese government actually respects patents by companies within it.)

Still though, China’s typical response when they get called on their bullshit is “fuck you, do something about it”.

Not defending China in any way, but that’s the response used by most powerful countries.

Every troll thinks they have a justification for it. They’re fighting the good fight and “poking holes” in groupthink. Was that or was it not one of your first posts in the community? And were you or were you not going in to argue?

You literally have comments in the mod-complaint post about how you think anarchism is fundamentally flawed. You didn’t go in there to understand anarchism or debate with fellow anarchists about what anarchism should be, you went in to argue for a political goal.

It doesn’t matter if you were doing it for the right reasons. It also doesn’t really matter if the mod was also posting for the wrong reasons. The pattern of going into a community to immediately debate them is classic trolling behavior. The various people who responded to you in the mod-complaint community told you all these things.

I don’t even know what his belief or the prevailing narrative of the community is. He sounds like a troll because what he described is trolling. He “came in”, implying it was his first or nearly first post, and immediately wanted to “poke a hole in the narrative”. That’s classic trolling.

Weirdly the ability for Lemmy to have many versions of the same community is both the solution to this policy change and the best argument against it being necessary. If the mods in one version want to be a fan club rather than a debate club, that’s not a problem because there are other communities out there. And at the same time, if World wants to mandate all communities be debate clubs, people can stop visiting World communities.

Lemmy definitely has a problem with single-viewpoint moderated communities. I am banned from some anarchism communities because I came in and did exactly what Serinus described, gave a point of view that poked a hole in the only officially allowed narrative,

You sound like a troll who went to the anarchism community for the purpose of starting an argument. “Debate me bro” isn’t a personality that should need to be supported by topic-focused communities.

I really thought this was satire.

Article title: “DoJ to release”

Article summary: “Garland plans to release” but “a court injunction temporarily blocks the report’s release”

Until the rightwing court deigns to allow them to release a negative report on their new fascist leader or Merrick Garland’s balls grow three sizes and he just does it even though fucking Aileen Cannon says no, the report won’t be released. The clock is ticking and there are plentiful options for the greater conservative project to block this unless they’re willing to call a spade a spade and just do it without asking permission.

You’re still dodging the question. From over a week ago now.

Especially for something socially embarrassing. That’s just building a blackmail database. Sure, porn use isn’t going to significantly compromise a lot of people, but for some that could end marriages and careers.

And currency, and people, and just things in general.

Do all the things he says not to do.

What, “progressive” isn’t synonymous with “the elites” or “the political establishment”?

The only enlightened path for a Real Objective Thinker is to accept that anything might exist! If not you’re just engaging in the same mystical thinking as those people who believe sky-daddy is all powerful and all good, but is just working in mysterious ways all those times good people need help and nothing happens. It’s exactly the same you hypocrite. /s

Long ago I saw him speak at a local gathering of humanists and even despite believing that atheism was a morally superior path and that religion was a harmful plague on humanity, still came away completely repulsed by him. He just seemed like an egotistical jerk with not very complex thoughts on society. I believe he was almost entirely focused on Islam rather than the more proximally harmful Christianity. It’s not at all surprising to me that he ended up where he is.

So we need more political calls to ignore court decisions, to degrade judicial authority from an illegitimate and corrupt institution.

John Roberts is scared of his power being questioned and has been for a long time. The conservative “judicial” movement has put a lot of effort into acquiring the power to rule as politicians in black robes and doesn’t want anyone to take that away. That fear occasionally comes out in him giving token but ineffectual resistance to the bad decisions of his conservative teammates, but more often comes out as him criticizing anyone that would dare question why they should be listened to. Never does it involve actual efforts to bolster the court’s legitimacy and curb its blatant corruption.

And elect him president so it’s legal.

That’s not even playing ethical. Garland’s stance was effectively that Trump shouldn’t be prosecuted because it might look bad. That’s the opposite of a strict ethical code.