this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2026
728 points (98.9% liked)
politics
30412 readers
2460 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What, pray tell, is the “rule” about celebrating death? It couldn’t possibly be some absolute Reddit shit, could it?
Sidebar rule 6:
"No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning."
Any good justification for this rule you can think of?
(Also… weird that you’re not actually enforcing it? Is it a “rule” or not?)
Basic humanity? Graham lacked it, doesn't mean we should.
So if we celebrated hitler's death we lack humanity? People should be free to celebrate a death if they feel to. Forcing your idea of a moral code over people is not nice. We are not talking about celebrating violence, a crime or wishing for somebody's death.
People should be free to express their feelings if they don't hurt anyone, without having to fear the morality police. The point of modorators should be to create a welcoming and safe space, not to impose your morality on others.
Doesn't matter if you think it's "nice" or not. It's a rule for this community.
Yes, and you could have answered "thanks for your input, but we are going to stick with our rules because we have our reasons", instead you basically tell me "Doesn't matter what you think, these are the rules and you must respect them. No discussion allowed". I mean sure, you make the rules, but the way you enforce them and react to criticism speaks for itself.
I don't make the rules here, but I do enforce them.
Right, "you were just doing your job" ...
You should answer the question posed though…
Disingenuous questions don't get answers. Ask a question in good faith and I'll answer it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
Jesus fucking Christ. We’re really doing this high road virtue signaling bullshit here, too? Cool. Continue being part of the problem, I guess.
If you don't like it, make your own community. It's a stated rule here.
Ahhhh, the "when they go low, we go high" approach.
Gee whizz, that approach has really been working out so far, hasn't it...
Not positive that you should be enforcing your own personal ethics onto other people. Free speech should be a thing. If a person did bad things and people are glad that he is no longer in a position to do bad things, that is a celebration in itself. Trying to enforce opinions like this is self-congratulatory in that you consider your opinion is superior and worthy of judicial enforcement.
Note that I haven't in the slightest commented on the man himself, yet still run the risk of banning. It all depends upon the moderator. This happens on Reddit all the time and that's the problem with this kind of moderation. It has a chilling effect. Give a censor a job and they tend to censor.
Freedom of speech is what the government controls. You have no freedom of speech within a private entity like social media.
The TOS sets the overall rules, each community further defines them.
The Lemmy instances which are "do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" get de-federated pretty damn quickly due to the raw sewage they pump out.
What a stupid rule
Can we still celebrate the sudden reduction in evil secondary to his death?
I wouldn't have a problem with that. I'd add that today seems 2.85714286E−9% brighter without him in it.
The issue is that what is presented as a single rule is actually several different rules crammed into one sentence. It strings together multiple distinct ideas with commas, making it unclear where one prohibition ends and another begins. If each of those ideas is meant to stand on its own, they should be written as separate rules rather than bundled together under a single heading.
Secondly, "celebrating death" is an extremely vague concept. Many cultures celebrate death in one form or another. Hindus, for example, have traditions that celebrate the passage into the next life. Creole culture also has a long history of turning funerals into communal celebrations.
Moreover, what exactly constitutes a celebration of death? If someone feels happy that a particular person has died, they are not necessarily celebrating death itself. They are simply acknowledging that someone they disliked is gone and, in their view, that the world is objectively better off as a result.
So if I say, "I am happy that so-and-so died," that is not, in and of itself, a morally reprehensible statement. It merely expresses an individual's emotions. No one is obligated to like another person or to feel sadness when they die. Death itself is not a moral act; the act of taking a life is. In this case, the individual died naturally rather than as the result of anyone's actions.
As a result, I see no compelling reason why death itself should never be celebrated, whether the sentiment is meant to admonish the deceased or to honor them.
"or" makes it clear to anyone with an understanding of English that these are each separate items.
Maybe amend the rule to "celebrating death of actual human beings". There's one person whose death will be celebrated far and wide, for sure.
We did lift the rule temporarily when it was Kissinger. 😉
So it's a highly inconsistent rule that also get lifted when someone the mods hate dies? Holy shit
Wasn't just "the mods hate". Kissinger was legit a war criminal.
As much as we all hate Graham, he was not at the same level as Kissinger. Few are.