Scrolling through the replies, it’s hard not to notice that the rule set here, ‘no misinformation, good-faith discussion, be excellent to each other’, isn’t really being applied evenly.
If posts that mock or dehumanise an entire group count as ‘political humor,’ then the rule about misinformation or harassment doesn’t mean much.
I’m fine if this gets me booted, but it seems fair to ask: what’s the point of the rules if they’re only enforced for one side?
To be specific, this meme frames European colonisation as ‘illegal immigration.’ It’s rhetorically clever, but factually inaccurate, there was no unified legal system, no concept of national borders, and no codified immigration law in pre-colonial North America. There were many Indigenous nations with their own governance systems, but nothing resembling the modern legal idea of “illegal entry.”
By the literal reading of this community’s rule, ‘No misinformation. Be prepared to back up your factual claims with evidence’, that should qualify as misinformation.
What worries me is that if someone posted a meme using the same format but with the political roles reversed, it probably wouldn’t be given the same leniency. I don’t see examples of opposing humour being treated the same way, and that makes me think there’s a double standard at play. If that’s how the community operates, fine, but it would be more transparent to state that openly rather than pretend neutrality.
It’s rhetorically clever, but factually inaccurate, there was no unified legal system, no concept of national borders, and no codified immigration law in pre-colonial North America.
See I’d argue that that’s factually inaccurate and rhetorically misleading. There was a unified legal system in the sense that laws were known and agreed upon. They didn’t have powdered wigs, the laws weren’t numbered, and they didn’t wear black a lot, so far as I know. That’s a Western, colonial-point-of-view about the illegitimacy of the non-western-colonial-point-of-view. It’s the same as “because I said so”.
I think if you’re looking to apply stated rules evenly, you’ll need to mod your own community to get a sense of how that actually plays out. There are several undefinable elements you’re not taking into account.
And for what it’s worth, usually the comment threads die off in a day or so, there’s not enough people commenting to keep it going much past that, so don’t be surprised if you don’t get a lot of replies to a post that’s more than a day or two old.
Scrolling through the replies, it’s hard not to notice that the rule set here, ‘no misinformation, good-faith discussion, be excellent to each other’, isn’t really being applied evenly. If posts that mock or dehumanise an entire group count as ‘political humor,’ then the rule about misinformation or harassment doesn’t mean much. I’m fine if this gets me booted, but it seems fair to ask: what’s the point of the rules if they’re only enforced for one side?
To be specific, this meme frames European colonisation as ‘illegal immigration.’ It’s rhetorically clever, but factually inaccurate, there was no unified legal system, no concept of national borders, and no codified immigration law in pre-colonial North America. There were many Indigenous nations with their own governance systems, but nothing resembling the modern legal idea of “illegal entry.”
By the literal reading of this community’s rule, ‘No misinformation. Be prepared to back up your factual claims with evidence’, that should qualify as misinformation.
What worries me is that if someone posted a meme using the same format but with the political roles reversed, it probably wouldn’t be given the same leniency. I don’t see examples of opposing humour being treated the same way, and that makes me think there’s a double standard at play. If that’s how the community operates, fine, but it would be more transparent to state that openly rather than pretend neutrality.
See I’d argue that that’s factually inaccurate and rhetorically misleading. There was a unified legal system in the sense that laws were known and agreed upon. They didn’t have powdered wigs, the laws weren’t numbered, and they didn’t wear black a lot, so far as I know. That’s a Western, colonial-point-of-view about the illegitimacy of the non-western-colonial-point-of-view. It’s the same as “because I said so”.
I think if you’re looking to apply stated rules evenly, you’ll need to mod your own community to get a sense of how that actually plays out. There are several undefinable elements you’re not taking into account.
And for what it’s worth, usually the comment threads die off in a day or so, there’s not enough people commenting to keep it going much past that, so don’t be surprised if you don’t get a lot of replies to a post that’s more than a day or two old.