Should we have a rule about marking satire as satire?
Should we have a rule about marking satire as satire?
I want to get y'all thoughts on it. I want to avoid having 5,000 rules that are impossible to follow, but this one seems prudent.
Just a simple [Satire] in the titles would be enough.
Edit: I won't add a rule about a satire tag.
Partially unrelated, but I still of the opinion that "liberal" posts should be allowed beyond just the comments. Otherwise news of things like Isreal's refugee camp airstrike killing civilians have no chance to be brought up except through whataboutisms.
When you post lefty stuff, it buries the right wing stuff. Lemmy is about 99% left wing, half of them straight up communist. They upvote lefty stuff and downvote right wing stuff, regardless of quality or facts or anything. Votes are used an agree/disagree button.
This sub is sort of a foothold for right wingers. It allows for diversity of thought on an site scale.
I'm pretty sure I've gone over this.
When you post lefty stuff, it buries the right wing stuff.
It's almost like conservatism isn't able to compete in a true free market of ideas.
They upvote lefty stuff and downvote right wing stuff, regardless of quality or facts or anything.
Dude you've been posting shit like breitbart here. You don't actually care about quality or facts.
It allows for diversity of thought
Banning posts that are critical of conservatism is not "diversity of thought".
The Onion once filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court informing the justices that satire does not need labels. Going so far as to argue that satire isn't satire if it's labelled as such.
This was after a police department arrested a guy for creating a fake Facebook page of that department and posted things that made it seem like the department was full of racist sex offenders. The police claimed that since it wasn't labelled as a joke page people could be confused. The Onion argues, that's the whole point of satire.
What was the outcome?
It was a request for the court to hear the case (a petition for certiorari). The court denied cert and didn't hear the case, therefore the lower court ruling stayed in place. From Wikipedia "The parody page, which strongly resembled the real page, had led to Novak's arrest in March 2016 and a subsequent trial for disrupting public services, which resulted in Novak's acquittal.[1] Novak then brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation and prior restraint. An initial decision of the Sixth Circuit in July 2019 allowed most of the suit to proceed, leading to a February 2021 ruling that Novak's arresting officers both had probable cause and were protected by qualified immunity, which the Sixth Circuit upheld in April 2022. "
If you're wondering what the lower courts ruling was, it's on Wikipedia: Novak v. City of Parma. They ruled police had Qualified Immunity from violations of First and Fourth amendment rights because there wasn't evidence they did it in retaliation or bad faith. Also, wiki notes that The Babylon Bee also requested the Supreme Court hear the case, which I didn't know.
That would be stupid. We don't need rules for the handful of absolute braindeas slugs that are incapable of identifying the source as, what, like 1 or 2 extremely well known satire sites?
Satire really doesn't exist anymore. You might consider that satire today is reality in our country within a few months. If I told you that a legislative body told the public that by spending more money they would REDUCE inflation you would call that satire. It's nuts and everyone should know that it's nuts, if you understand basic math. Yet 99% of the media totally agreed with the concept and sold it to the few that still take them seriously.