Safer, sure. Less? Absolutely not. More people will use marijuana when it’s legal.

My dad works at Nintendo and is going to ban you from all games.

It can make sense if you flesh it out. The headline and two lines the musician said about it are shallow, but there’s a grain of truth in there.

I do believe that overuse of marijuana is going to be a negative. Kids under 24 using marijuana is going to be a negative. And both of those are going to increase with legalization.

Neither are as harmful as prohibition, but they’re still harmful.

Potheads don’t need to be on quite the same level as alcoholism, but it should be closer than it is. If you’re not acknowledging the harm of using the legal system to enforce this, his quote makes sense. He may not have stated it well.

I would still be very careful about when and where and how you say it. Quoting the state constitution at the right time should certainly give you more leeway than other states, but I wouldn’t risk saying it too early.

It’s best to just treat it as not allowed, at least until deliberation. Maybe even then.

.
…▄▄ ▄▄
…▀▀▀▀▀███▄███
…▓█ ▀ █████████▄
▓████████▀▀▀▀██
▓█████▀▄▄████▄
▓█▀▀▀▄█▓▓▓▓▓█▀
▒█ ███▓▓▓▓▓█▀…TEST
▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓█…ALLIANCE
▄▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▀▄…BEST
…▀▀██░█░█▀…ALLIANCE
…▀░█░▀

Get on a jury, say exactly that, and see what happens.

It’s both.

$100k bond for a threat that is neither specific nor credible is absurd.

If it were a first time offender threat against a normal person (which is more specific), at most it would result in probation and a restraining order.

You have to be very particular if you’re going to do that.

Jury nullification is not allowed. Voting not guilty because you have reasonable doubt is always allowed. You don’t have to explain why you have reasonable doubt.

The fact that those happen to be jury nullification is unfortunate for those who would like to disallow it.

If you say “nullification”, you can likely be removed from the jury. If you say you believe they did it, but you’re going to vote not guilty anyway, you might be removed. If you just insist you have reasonable doubt, and insist that decision is yours to make, you can’t be removed.

There’s no need to stick to the most popular software.

As long as they properly interact, sure. But critical mass is important, and I feel like Lemmy is just getting there.

https://lemmy.world/post/23079780

Because besides monthly active users, LW has 4,600 subscribers where lemm.ee has 537. It’s not a clear cut case.

At least the ones who voted Trump cared. They may have been bamboozled, but they did show up.

Too many others just didn’t give a fuck about the direction of our country to take 15 minutes out of their day for an average of once a year.

I’m also on BlueSky as well as Mastodon, because BlueSky has the momentum right now, and critical mass is important.

In that same vein, I wish you’d treat LW as you do any other instance. We’re not hostile to other instances, and I think there’s a healthy balance right now. It doesn’t hurt Lemmy to have a bigger, more mainstream instance. I think defederation solely for the sake of defederation does hurt Lemmy.

Being a nuisance to users.

I’m on the Community Team for LW. A large part of my effort (in particular) has been to actively recruit mods who haven’t asked for the position.

One reason is exactly what you just said. Those most inclined to rule are generally least suited. (Thanks, Douglas Adams.)

Another is that I’ve actively tried to avoid the Reddit supermod situation, where ten people share moderation of every important Reddit sub. You’ll notice that we generally have a different set of moderators for each of our largest subs. (Admins don’t count because they don’t/can’t really mod. Admins see reports for the whole instance.)

That, of course, has caused other issues. One is that our communities tend to be less consistent than subreddits. You can view this as a good or bad thing, but we’re generally judged as an instance by the most egregious actions of the most egregious community. And we’re all new to this and learning.

Admins/Community Team also are walking a fine line. It’s natural when you’re drafted/appointed as a mod to want to do your job. I’ve been regularly advising mods to take a lighter hand in moderation, but we’re also trying to avoid watching over every decision they make. They have some leeway in what they do.

My understanding was that:

The comment called “dragonrider” “dragonfucker” as an insult.
I tried to politely ask the OP to remove that one word from an otherwise good comment while taking no mod actions.
After a day of no response (and other activity from OP), drag changed their name to reflect the insult and poke at me for not taking real action against the personal attack.
I then removed the comment. Trying to ignore drag poking and treat them fairly where it was warranted.

My understanding was wrong. (According to users who I’m inclined to believe.)

Lemmy came through (below). Things are getting better here. I feel like we’re reaching critical mass, if only we could stop the infighting.

Would you consider it overmoderation to ban that guy?

if you’re too explicitly willing to fight back in the ongoing class war you will be de-platformed and treated as if you are an actual terrorist.

Yes. First, Luigi was attempting to affect political change through fear and violence. That’s the definition of terrorist.

Second, what do you think allowing that does to the platform?

This act of sexual abuse is going to change how 60 girls and soon to be woman respond to sex, likely for the rest of their lives. These images may follow them forever

No, it’s not. No, it shouldn’t.

First, it’s so, so much easier to deal with when you have the response of “that’s not me”. Second, it’s current AI. How real do these things even look?

These girls were not sexually abused. Sexual harassment is more a appropriate crime. Maybe libel. Maybe a new crime that we can call “sexual libel” or something.