Yep. Banning users who aren't subscribed to a community and are just downvoting everything that comes up is pretty common and understandable.
The typical modlog entry I see for that is "block the community or curate your feed", and I think that's pretty justified. It's like intentionally showing up somewhere you don't want to be just to "booooo" everything there. Being asked to leave and not demoralize the people just trying to exist in their own space is perfectly fine, IMO.
Also, what's up with not being able to block a community you're banned from?
Wait, really? I'm gonna have to check on that. Curious if that's an API limitation or a frontend bug. What frontend did you use? Lemmy-UI?
Your last submission was a ~~little~~ lot too "Thanos was right, and we should do that" but without a fictional framing device. If you can re-work it to be a ~~little~~ lot less dehumanizing to 50% of the world's population, please feel free to resubmit.
But I will say that those people you're calling parasites would probably be more "useful" to society if society wasn't largely an orphan crushing machine and they had a chance to utilize their potential.
Again, if you can rework it so it's not "Thanos was right", feel free to resubmit. This post, however, is not an unpopular opinion and I'm going to have to remove it.
Fantastic use of X's 😆 Well done.
(Not directing this at you, OP, just setting the tone for any replies)
Remember Rule 1: No politics. The post itself is fine since it's about the meme. Please don't turn the comments into political shouting, but otherwise carry on.
If that were to happen, it'd only be for tech companies, not people. lol.
Well, fuck.
And after they just got there
It seems like the productive discussion has run its course, and OP seems to be finished with it. Locking post.
To be fair to OP, I didn't even think of phrasing it that way when I was trying to parse it.
That's a lot better put.
I'm pretty sure your heart is in the right place, but your argument is more than a little confusing.
The first paragraph clearly states that you believe sexual attraction is not a choice, and yet your argument is that "it's not a choice" is counter-productive.
If I understand it correctly, you're basically saying to re-frame the "it's a choice" narrative into something that affects straight people who oppose LGBT+ rights because they believe it is a choice that can be made?
e.g. If you're straight and then one day "choose" to be gay, but LGBT+ rights have been abolished, then the government has taken away your right to choose?
If I'm understanding correctly, all other points aside, it may be too confusing to have any good/meaningful impact.
Thanks. I'll add that to my test cases for the UI I work with. I don't think I've ever tried to block a community the test user was banned from, so I'm curious if it's an API restriction or the way the UI handles it. Will prob also submit a bug once I figure out which.
Edit: That looks like the community options that have the "block community" button are all hidden when you're banned rather than the "block" functionality being restricted. I'm almost positive now that it's just a UI bug. Will still add it to my test cases, though.