this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2025
1018 points (98.4% liked)
196
4355 readers
1799 users here now
Community Rules
You must post before you leave
Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).
Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.
Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.
Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".
Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.
Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.
Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.
Avoid AI generated content.
Avoid misinformation.
Avoid incomprehensible posts.
No threats or personal attacks.
No spam.
Moderator Guidelines
Moderator Guidelines
- Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
- Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
- When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
- Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
- Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
- Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
- Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
- Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
- Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
- Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
- Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
- Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
- First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
- Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
- No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
- Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
- Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Way too much moral relativism in here for my liking.
Morality is relative.
A Fox hunts a Rabbit.
Humans are not strictly governed by instinct and do not actually have to live by eating other sentients.
Our morality need not be a zero-sum game..
A surprising amount of puritanical views are related to instinct, though. They start to make more sense when you realize that they consider 'I'm uncomfortable with this' to mean 'this is evil and needs to go away'.
There's nothing instinctual about puritanical fears. That's pseudo-science.
We are instinctually discomforted by things that are unfamiliar to us - the appearance and behaviors of the homeless, the physical state of the visibly disabled, people of other nationalities, etc etc. We also are instinctually uncomfortable with public sex acts (sex is something to be done where you are safe and can't be interrupted says monkey brain). We are instinctually uncomfortable with acts of excess, as in a community with tight resources, their excess means less resources for the rest. Extend those to the point they become absurd, and what do you get?
Sorry bud, but fear of the unknown is an instinct many have to overcome, and those fucks don't know much!
Right, that was a metaphor meant to illustrate that 'Morality' can differ based on ones point of view. Whether or not humans are 'strictly governed by instinct' or have to live by 'eating other sentients' is beside the point.
That is beside the point as well. Unless you believe that the universe had a creator, who also created 'morality' and is the ultimate arbiter of what is 'moral' and what isn't- it's simply impossible to say what is objectively moral and what isn't.
Human centered example 1.
Person A believes in Christianity. Person B does not.
To Person A making jokes about Jesus being 'hammered' or 'really nailing it' could be considered blasphemy, which is a sin and is immoral.
To Person B the entire concept of blasphemy is nonsense and there is nothing 'immoral' about such jokes in any way.
Person C agrees with Person A, but believes that anyone who blasphemes should be put to death.
Example 2.
Person A believes that Jesus would want you to do whatever is medically necessary to keep a person alive no matter how terrible their quality of life.
Person B believes that it should be up to individuals when they should be allowed to shuffle off the mortal coil and that it can be the humane option to actually help end the life of a person suffering a painful and debilitating terminal illness.
Person C believes that only God gets to determine who lives and who dies- but unlike person A they believe that any medical treatment whatsoever is immoral and a persons health should be determined by God alone.
Example 3.
Humans have destroyed the Earth, the last remnants of our species exists as a single colony aboard an interstellar spacecraft. We are on the brink of starvation, and must find a new homeworld soon. We happen upon a planet that would be just right for human habitation if it were terraformed, which we have the technology to accomplish. If we do that, the one alien lifeform on the planet, a type of bacteria, will die.
Person A rejoices that 'The LORD' has blessed humans with a new promised land.
Person B doesn't like the idea of killing the first example of Alien Life so far discovered and thinks we must find a way where both Earth species and the Alien species can survive, even if taking the extra time to do so might doom humanity.
Person C believes that this planet was given to the alien bacteria by God and living on an inhabited planet is immoral under any circumstances- if we can't find an uninhabited planet before time runs out for humanity, that is God's will.
Example 4, same scenario as example 3, but the entire planet is teeming with complex lifeforms.
Example 5, same scenario as example 4, but there is a sentient and intelligent life form that has become the dominate species on the planet, They have a caste system based on superstition, practice slavery, and eat any of their offspring who aren't "perfect".
Example 6, same scenario as example 5, but the dominate species are pretty cool actually. There is still no way for humans and aliens to share the planet and we must choose between us and them.
Who is 'right' in each of these scenarios? You and I likely agree on the morality of many, many things- then again perhaps we do not. If you know of a way of determining the objective morality of things- I would like to know what that is.