He’s free to discuss this article any way that he thinks is interesting. Just because he found it helpful to point out the bias in this case doesn’t obligate him to do it in any other cases. He doesn’t owe you anything.
Also, responding to someone noting the reputation of your source with what amounts to "ARE YOU ACCUSING ME OF BREAKING THE RULES? ARE YOU SAYING CONSERVATIVE LEANING SOURCES ARE ILLEGAL?” is basically the textbook definition of a wildly defensive response lmao.
They didn’t say you couldn’t appeal a civil case. They said that ineffective counsel can’t be the basis of that appeal.
The default wallpaper looks so much like testicles photographed from below and I can’t unsee it
The saying never says that you can make 999,999,999.99 honestly. It just says one amount you can make honestly and one amount you can’t. The implication is that the outer limit of what you can make honestly is somewhere in between.
Haha yeah, good point. I guess I should have specified it would be a good post on this community specifically where people look to find handy tips for using Lemmy effectively. The fact that one of the huge instances where a lot of your search results come from when you’re starting out looking for content has such an aggressive pro-totalitarian moderation strategy is an unexpected, but very useful insight.
Holy crap. This should be it’s own post. Just purged all the “serious” communities I was following on there.
This is definitely a gap on the main community pages, but in the interim, if you click into an actual post it shows the fully qualified community name at the top. At least that’s what I’m seeing.
Go for it