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.

Yeah, a bit, I’m honestly just trying to figure out if this community applies its own rules evenly. I actually agree with the rules as written, but if it turns out they’re enforced with a double standard, I’d probably rather just leave or block the community instead of fighting it.

Well, yes, that’s exactly what I’m getting at. The image presents a list of statements as ‘THE FACTS,’ yet none of them are backed by evidence or citations. They’re framed as literal confessions of criminal activity that have never been legally established.

For example: • It claims he ‘staged a coup’ and ‘incited sedition’ — those are legal terms implying conviction, which hasn’t happened. • It says ‘I knew I lost, I lied anyway,’ but that’s speculation about his internal thoughts, not a verified fact. • It concludes with ‘We belong in prison,’ which again asserts guilt without due process.

That’s why I questioned it under the ‘no misinformation’ rule. Even if it’s meant as humor, it’s still presented as a factual list and I’m unsure if there’s similar treatment allowed for jokes about the opposite side as there seems to be none.

I’m not asking for it to be removed, just trying to understand where the boundary is between political humor and posts that make factual claims without evidence.

I’m new here, so this is a genuine question — not trying to stir things up.

I’m trying to understand how images like this fit within the community rules, especially the parts about ‘no misinformation’ and ‘good-faith arguments.’ It’s clearly political humor, but it also reads as a literal accusation list.

I haven’t seen any similar memes from the opposing perspective, so I’m wondering where the line is drawn. What qualifies as humor versus misinformation or bad faith here? I’m asking because I’d like to participate without accidentally breaking the rules myself.

Amen to that, good thing though. Got me to learn what Lemmy was. Apparently I’ve been under a rock.

Legendary.

Ah legit. I get what you mean.

Ok great! From the sounds of it, certainly seems like Lemmy is promising. Hasn’t quite grown to the point where smaller niche subs have made it here just yet, but *hopefully * with a growing user base those niche subs may make their way onto the platform. I do love the idea of Lemmy.

As for your culture response I’m a little confused as quite the contrary was my experience on Reddit. Seemed to be an echo chamber of liberals who were incapable of debate and so therefore mods would often times delete posts or worse ban users even with sound rebuttals. (I am conservative, quite conservative I might add.) A moderators ideological or political stance shouldn’t be the determining factor as to whether a post or user gets banned.

In addition, as a side note. I’d gladly be the first conservative to debate you in good faith sometime. ;)

Regardless, thanks for the post! Going to start wrapping my head around Lemmy. I’m virtually walking in pitch black running into walls. Need to dig deeper in setting the account up!

Oh whoa sick. Reckon I’m about to nerd out on this for a bit. Thanks for the starter points.

Ok sweet. Are there any instances you’d recommend to a newbie? Totally open to see whats around. Also, are there any perks to being signed up to one instance versus another?

Well thats fantastic to hear. It’s my biggest issue with Reddit. I’m big into debating. Don’t mind being wrong, but I sure as hell don’t want to be be banned for trying to create dialogue.

amen.

That’s a really good point, I hadn’t thought about the AMA angle or how unique those niche pro communities were. Thanks for sharing that, definitely gives me a better picture of what people feel is missing.

Got it, that makes sense. I guess I’ll have to poke around and get a feel for the different instances/cultures myself. Appreciate the perspective!

If you wouldn’t mind helping me out here, am I getting this right? I signed up on Lemmy.world, so while I can still access other instances, people can see that I’m from Lemmy.world and kind of make assumptions about me based on that?

Ok wow, I’ve got a lot to learn about Lemmy. Gotta learn what these instances are. haha, Thanks for your thoughts.