Should also include: don’t invite violence against people who simply own cars.
this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
41 points (86.0% liked)
Fuck Cars
8949 readers
171 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't think it needs to be as specific as that why bit just don't incite violence. Period. Otherwise, it's making a statement about the community as a whole. (also, this is already covered by the rules)
Yep. Even the Netherlands makes their car appropriate paths great for cars.
Cars are still needed for distances too far to walk or to cycle at times when public transport doesn't run
I wish it weren't so, but it is so.
Most of my friends got hit by cars. My best friend is gonna stay crippled because of some text-and-drive vroemer. Is you guys goal to convert drivers or to allow people to vent and organize against car-centric policy? Because if it's the former, it might not be a community for me.
I'm concerned about the definitions of some of the terms in these rules
-
What does it mean to be kind? Do you have to agree with everyone? Are you allowed to say the fuck word?
-
What does it mean to attack other people? Are we talking ad hominem, or is making an argument with a stern tone of voice an attack?
-
Where is the line between opinion and action drawn? Is it okay to attack people for driving cars? That's not an opinion, it's an action, and it kills people, but I have a feeling certain people would say no anyway
-
What is a double post? Do you mean repost or crosspost?
These are the guidelines that the human moderators are going to be using to make their judgements. They're not binding law. Is it really so important that you need to drill down to such tedious minutia? Just be good and if you do something wrong while acting in good faith, I'm sure they'll just tell you.
Yeah you are right, its my first time being moderator for such a big community. I just wan't to make the thought process behind my/our decisions more clear for everyone and I think that would not hurt. But thanks for your feedback! I really appreciate it
Meanwhile these people in criminal courtrooms:
“What does ‘murder’ mean? If I happen to own a knife and like to toss it, but someone moves in my way when the knife comes down, am I suddenly considered a murderer? Won’t some people abuse these rules?”
It's naive to assume all moderators will make sensible decisions when you don't know them.
Rules lawyering will not protect you from unreasonable moderators.
Rules lawyering usually results in harsher punishment
Okay I will try to give a bit more insight and it seems that we should add some explanations to the rules.
- You don't have to agree with everyone. Disagreements are a fundemental part of a community and its important that we can discuss about things. Of course the fuck word is still allowed. In my opinion at least in the context of this community. I meant its in the name.
- That is a really hard thing to differenciate for me currently. And I am working on it. But nontheless I would say that you can make a point, probably a far better one if you do not attack the person directly. You can attack the believes or the things that they write but not the person behind that. If you think someone else is going to far and you feel the need to get onto an personal level, you won't win anything.
- The line is also not easy, I understand what you mean. It was meant by me in a more general sense to like what I wrote in the point above. We should all be able to make our points and discredit other things without being dicks to other people.
- Could rename that clearer. Crossposts are completly okay so far. I wrote that in because we had sometimes, but not very often the case several people posted the same video in a short time. Its just there that we can make an easier call on that and delete things that are double. So probably no reposts?
Thank you very much for your input and I hope I could make my thought process a bit clearer
I just subscribed today but I think these rules feel very solid, along with the intent behind them. I especially like the rule about reposts as I don't like seeing repeated content over and over, regardless how much time has passed in between said posts.
Thanks for the response, that all sounds reasonable. One more question:
What happens if I attack someone's actions and they feel personally attacked? For example, I might say that driving a petrol car, in 100% of cases, will contribute to a child's chance of developing lung cancer. Another commenter who drives a car may then subjectively feel that they are being called a child murderer. I have stated an unbiased fact, but they have come to a completely logical conclusion and feel upset by that conclusion. So do we act as though I stated the emotional conclusion, or just the unbiased fact?
Of course, I am pretty happy that at least one person had some questions so far. Its in our all interest to make such questions a community thing (:
As you say, it is nearly impossible to write things, so that no one feels attacked by it. The goal is just to make obvious attacks against specific people against the rules. If someone feels attacked by unbiased facts, then its his problem. Because it would make it nearly impossible to make any discussions. So I would say we act by the unbiased fact.