5.0.1: Before using the website, remember you will be interacting with actual, real people and communities. Lemmy.World is not a place for you to attack other groups of people. Every one of our users has a right to browse and interact with the website and all of its contents free of treatment such as harassment, bullying, violation of privacy or threats of violence.
In my opinion this is actually better than the CoC. The only thing “missing” is the definition of which qualities you shouldn’t discriminate against. But that’s now generalized into “groups of people”.
I still can’t discriminate against people based on any qualification. Hell, I technically can’t discriminate against “pineapple on pizza eaters”.
Good. Because it’s fucking delicious and I don’t care what the internet says. We all loved it in the 90s, and nothing has changed. It’s still delicious, we just do less coke now.
Jalapenos with the pineapple is so stupidly good. You get bacon on there and then it’s like the crossroads of heavenly flavors. It’s not a pizza for the meek.
It’s a five gallon hat wearing, tambourine hand flailin, tastebuds up the wall wailin, genuine taste sensation!
Bacon or pepperoni. You need something salty do to do the job that ham fails to do.
Jalapenos are semi-optional. If they’re too spicy for someone, then pepperoni might be the choice. There needs to be something spicy to complement the pineapple.
I think you can’t read it too literally. Otherwise you also can’t discriminate against “people who wrote their comment later” and so you can never stop reading the comments for fear of discriminating between “early comment writers” and “late comment writers”.
I just replied this to another commenter, but that’s a bad faith argument. The ToS also says to not engage in illegal activity. The admonishment of Nazi’s and Racists is an admonishment of illegal evil.
By my reading of it, you can still discriminate against pineapple pizza eaters, or any other group whatsoever, you just can’t harass, bully, violate their privacy or threaten them with violence. Which is fine by me, if someone wants to make a community only for ginger haired people and ban anyone they think isn’t naturally ginger, that’s their perogative.
That was my takeaway, too, and I think it’s positive. The nice thing is, if it turns out that the policy fosters behavior that’s bad for the broader community, they can change it.
Of course we would, and that’s also exactly why we invited users to discuss and provide feedback while launching it. It is a living document, and we hope to update and improve it periodically and consistently.
Some people have given you guys a lot of flack, but I really think you’re making a thoughtful, good faith effort to do things right, and I think you’re doing well. There have been a couple things that I thought were the wrong decision, but (1) they’ve been relatively minor, and (2) they’ve been reasonable even if I might have chosen differently. I very much appreciate the thought that goes into running this place.
Thank you. I appreciate your sincere response, and I can assure you the rest of our team will too. Differences in decisions may naturally occur, of course, but I think being able to reason things is what matters in the end. Here’s wishing you a great one.
That’s a bad faith argument. The ToS also says to not engage in illegal activity. The admonishment of Nazi’s and Pedophiles is an admonishment of illegal evil.
Your inclusion of Republicans is a bit of an extreme juxtaposition. Feel free to admonish the individual evil views of Republicans, but to discriminate against Republicans purely for their association is rightly against ToS.
In my opinion this is actually better than the CoC. The only thing “missing” is the definition of which qualities you shouldn’t discriminate against. But that’s now generalized into “groups of people”.
I still can’t discriminate against people based on any qualification. Hell, I technically can’t discriminate against “pineapple on pizza eaters”.
Good. Because it’s fucking delicious and I don’t care what the internet says. We all loved it in the 90s, and nothing has changed. It’s still delicious, we just do less coke now.
Obligatory pizza related chime in. You fuck with jalapenos on that sexy pineapple pizza?
Pineapple pairs the best with spicy pizzas, I always add it as an extra.
Sometimes I fucks with jalapenos, yeah. Especially if I’m high. Lol.
Jalapenos with the pineapple is so stupidly good. You get bacon on there and then it’s like the crossroads of heavenly flavors. It’s not a pizza for the meek.
It’s a five gallon hat wearing, tambourine hand flailin, tastebuds up the wall wailin, genuine taste sensation!
Hot take: ham doesn’t go on pizza. The pineapple isn’t the problem
That a spicy one for sure. What’s the combo then? I need to know what else to pair with that sweet ol pineapple.
Bacon or pepperoni. You need something salty do to do the job that ham fails to do.
Jalapenos are semi-optional. If they’re too spicy for someone, then pepperoni might be the choice. There needs to be something spicy to complement the pineapple.
It’s so fucking good, but I’m more of a ham than bacon person. Bacon is too hard for my poor, American, no dental insurance havin’ teeth. Lol.
Hmm, does that mean you’re also going soft not crispy pizza?
I can do crispy crust, it’s not too hard. But I do also love a deep dish. Lol.
Removed by mod
This ain’t your fathers pizza coitus, jack! EXTREME!!!
Removed by mod
Some say it was a fault, I say it was my sweet and spicy pleasure.
Removed by mod
You heretic! I want you to know that if I could discriminate against you for putting pineapple on pizza, I absolutely would!
I respect their right to put pineapple pizza, but I’ll be damned if our pizzas are going to touch.
What about people who don’t eat pizza crust?
They are wonderful people. Especially when they tear off the crust so I can eat it.
They’re useful idiots if they give me their crusts.
I love some pineapple pizza!
Some day we will eradicate your kind
As it is worded you can’t discriminate against nazis and racists either.
You can discriminate all you want, you just can’t harass, bully, violate privacy or threaten violence.
deleted by creator
This is an ALT account of OP
Edit: @princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone can confirm
Can confirm.
Edit: Wild they keep making the same 4-5 usernames on multiple instances. That account name was on Blahaj last I saw it.
I think you can’t read it too literally. Otherwise you also can’t discriminate against “people who wrote their comment later” and so you can never stop reading the comments for fear of discriminating between “early comment writers” and “late comment writers”.
Literal is the only way these things are supposed to be read.
They could easily fix it by saying “groups (except for those that promote discrimination and/or hate such as nazis and racists)”
I just replied this to another commenter, but that’s a bad faith argument. The ToS also says to not engage in illegal activity. The admonishment of Nazi’s and Racists is an admonishment of illegal evil.
Being a Nazi is not illegal in most jurisdictions. It certainly wasn’t illegal in Nazi Germany.
Bruh I hate to break this to you but nearly all governments are racist. Have you not heard of what the US did to black people for 300 years?
By my reading of it, you can still discriminate against pineapple pizza eaters, or any other group whatsoever, you just can’t harass, bully, violate their privacy or threaten them with violence. Which is fine by me, if someone wants to make a community only for ginger haired people and ban anyone they think isn’t naturally ginger, that’s their perogative.
That was my takeaway, too, and I think it’s positive. The nice thing is, if it turns out that the policy fosters behavior that’s bad for the broader community, they can change it.
Of course we would, and that’s also exactly why we invited users to discuss and provide feedback while launching it. It is a living document, and we hope to update and improve it periodically and consistently.
Some people have given you guys a lot of flack, but I really think you’re making a thoughtful, good faith effort to do things right, and I think you’re doing well. There have been a couple things that I thought were the wrong decision, but (1) they’ve been relatively minor, and (2) they’ve been reasonable even if I might have chosen differently. I very much appreciate the thought that goes into running this place.
Thank you. I appreciate your sincere response, and I can assure you the rest of our team will too. Differences in decisions may naturally occur, of course, but I think being able to reason things is what matters in the end. Here’s wishing you a great one.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
LOL the OP of this post is YOU. I remember the blahaj stuff. You had another alt, dronerights, too.
True ;)
Removed by mod
I like my pineapple pizzas with a bbq base 🤪 don’t come after me 😂
I’ll split that pizza with you.
Nazis are a group of people. Republicans are a group of people. Pedophiles are a group of people.
That’s a bad faith argument. The ToS also says to not engage in illegal activity. The admonishment of Nazi’s and Pedophiles is an admonishment of illegal evil.
Your inclusion of Republicans is a bit of an extreme juxtaposition. Feel free to admonish the individual evil views of Republicans, but to discriminate against Republicans purely for their association is rightly against ToS.
Ok, Boomer.
We could do this for any group of people we don’t like IMO… Doesn’t make it right, regardless of how disgusting their actions may be ☹️
Kebab meat and pineapple, thin crust. I will fight to the death for that
Need some context here: is this what we removed, something that’s already somewhere else, a proposed replacement, or something else?
That paragraph is part of the new terms and conditions document they released.