662
I for one have stopped posting any content to lemmy.ml communities.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
662 points (80.7% liked)
memes
10549 readers
2809 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Same answer as above: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/25676408/14608182
I can also cite academic papers that apparently prove homeopathy works or, if time doesn't matter, that lobotomy is worth a nobel prize. Doesn't mean they ain't of low quality / biased and pro-shit.
Where are you finding low-quality works being cited by MLs? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but ML groups are infinitely more willing to engage in self-crit than liberals.
An example I had comments removed for was Liberalism: A counter history, that goes through the words, actions, and context of major liberal philosophers to define liberalism.
Also Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, because using real data to derive a nuanced understanding distracted from the USSR bad circle-jerk.