this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2026
545 points (96.3% liked)
196
6808 readers
1849 users here now
Community Rules
You must post before you leave
Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).
Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.
Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.
Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".
Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.
Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.
Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.
Avoid AI generated content.
Avoid misinformation.
Avoid incomprehensible posts.
No threats or personal attacks.
No spam.
Moderator Guidelines
Moderator Guidelines
- Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
- Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
- When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
- Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
- Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
- Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
- Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
- Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
- Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
- Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
- Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
- Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
- First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
- Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
- No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
- Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
- Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
ITT: Witness the decline of American civilization and the return to barbarism under the guise of freedom to do shit.
Let me make a counter argument with just two words: Peer pressure.
People can be peer pressured into having sex, does that mean we should make sex illegal?
More people are going to give free, enthousiastic, clear-headed, ongoing consent to sex than to losing a lethal duel, but does that mean we should go after the ones that do?
And even if such willingness were a sign in and of itself that someone isn't clear-headed, would it make more sense to ban the practice than to offer proper mental care and general material support to people considering it?
Do you think we should make suicide illegal?
People also don't often kill each other via sex
"People can be peer pressured into both lethal dueling and sex, therefore they're equivalent" is not a valid argument.
Again, lethal dueling and suicide are not equivalent. Someone deciding for themselves that they're going to end their own life...if it's something they've thought about and planned (as opposed to an impulsive attemps, which are 95% of actual suicides), there's no realistic way to stop it. Dueling involves killing someone else , my man.
That's not what I'm saying. what I'm saying is that the possibility of peer pressure is not a valid argument for banning it.
That it should be legal is the null hypothesis, which must be overturned by arguments that demonstrate that criminalizing it makes society better before we can determine that its illegality is just.
If two people decide to duel each other in private in a place of their own choosing, why would there be any more chance of stopping them?
And even if you're talking about punishing people afterward, so many murders go unsolved, imagine how hard it gets if the person who dies fully cooperates with preparing an alibi and a means of disposal and removing any real evidence.
With their consent. Do you oppose euthanasia?
Incorrect.
Fortunately, there are extensive bodies of work on the morality and legality of dueling, since it was a pretty common activity in the US between the Revolution and the Civil War. Don't take my word for it. Do a little research, my woman.
So on matters of consent, the authorities you choose to cite are slave owners, misogynists, and homophobes?
Is there even one author among the sources you pictured who would have supported my right to exist as an atheist bisexual emancipated trans woman?
Uhhh...what sources did I picture? There are literally hundreds, maybe thousands of sources on this, and I urged you to look into it
That would make what I ask of you particularly easy, then.
@protist@mander.xyz has already made my point for me. But let me add another layer.
We're only talking here on the level of individual rights and consequences, and that tastes extremely cynical and libertarian to me. Both things I associate with an inconsiderate, overly individualist approach that is indicative of a failed state and a breakdown in societal cohesion.
I honestly think the more important factor to this question is societal. The real question is, what kind of society do we want to live in?
Yes, you have a right to consent to be killed. But from that doesn't rise the right for somebody else to kill.
There is a reason the age of dueling ended when the enlightenment and humanism became something our societies adopted as a whole instead of those things being just the pursuit of some airy intellectuals. And it is that, with the rise of democracy, people became aware that they have the right, but also the duty to shape the society we live in to be better. This - for me - is the central point of civilization, to actively construct and shape a society that grows continually more moral and drives us to listen to "the better angels of our nature" to say it in Lincoln's words, instead of listening to our baser wants.
Off Topic Rant: It is truly terrible to me, that all around the world politics has devolved from giving the great example of striving for (even if not achieving) a more moral, peaceful, unified and just society to giving the example of letting ourselves be governed by greed, egotism and our baser instincts.
That's honestly the one thing I loved about Merkel and Obama, even if they were two useless, right leaning conservatives (yes, mainstream democrats are conservative, honestly the GOP is reactionary and fascist at this point. Fucking hell the Overton-window is so far to the right), they still inspired people to rise to our better nature. And that is also the biggest societal threat I see from especially Trump being in office. The example he gives for society as a whole is a return to criminal, amoral, egotistical and cynical barbarism.
You really need to expand your political horizons. Those false dichotomies are just... sad. There is an entire world beyond the line between state absolutism and libertarian individualism. But until you can conceive of it, you are incapable of comprehending my position.
This development is the cause of the biggest extinction event in Earth's history, the colonization and genocide of tens of millions of people, and the incoming collapse of human population due to apocalyptic climate change. It has criminalized, sterilized, and slaughtered queer people for being degenerate; it has massacred barbarian indigenous populations; it has enslaved, criminalized, and exploited racialized minorities for needing a firm guiding hand; and it has beaten, murdered, and systematically disenfranchised working class people because they don't understand.
These are not the unfortunate mistakes of the rich and powerful who have a sadly mistaken view of what it means to be civilized. Civilization has always been a means to justify violent subjugation of the working class to those working class people who are reluctantly brought on board as "middle class" because if they sided with other workers the rich would be in danger.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal", quoth the slave owners to white workers in order to get the white workers to help them avoid taxation on their slave plantations.
It is no accident that the moral progress of civilization goes in lockstep with the power of workers. Decolonization happened when the colonies could produce their own revolutionary militias. Feminism happened as abundant machines made muscle strength obsolete. Labor rights increased with ease of communication between laborers across wide regions so they could organize strikes. And now with automation the power of workers is receding, and therefore the privileges are getting rescinded.
When a farmer stops two roosters from fighting and puts them in separate pens, is that because the farmer is so civilized that he can't stand violence being done to animals? Or is it because the farmer wants the roosters to be in good condition so he can exploit them for greater profit?
Hint: how does the farmer feel about the butcher that slaughters his hens?
Do you have a point in there in regards to killing consenting adults?
Euthanasia? Well, no. You can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
I'm okay with suicide. I also think there is a fundamental difference between that and killing another person.