BassetHound
@BassetHound@sh.itjust.works
- Comment on Looking for feedback: First draft of multi-level guidelines for Fedecan and its various platforms (lemmy.ca, sh.itjust.works, piefed.ca, pixelfed.ca) 2 days ago:
I’d draw the line at creating topics specifically about grievances with the person vs it being mentioned incidentally. I’d also say that an independent small business is often much closer to a person than an organization.
- Comment on Looking for feedback: First draft of multi-level guidelines for Fedecan and its various platforms (lemmy.ca, sh.itjust.works, piefed.ca, pixelfed.ca) 2 days ago:
There is a difference between calling someone out and using an online platform to organize against them.
As a counterpoint, would you be alright if people started calling out businesses for having discounts for LGBTQ+, or women, or new immigrants?
- Comment on Looking for feedback: First draft of multi-level guidelines for Fedecan and its various platforms (lemmy.ca, sh.itjust.works, piefed.ca, pixelfed.ca) 3 days ago:
Why am I intentionally missing the point? I don’t think platforming harassment is ever justified or constructive. Your assumption that I am acting in bad faith with no evidence is the same kind of ignorance that a lot of the right wing wackos have.
- Comment on Looking for feedback: First draft of multi-level guidelines for Fedecan and its various platforms (lemmy.ca, sh.itjust.works, piefed.ca, pixelfed.ca) 3 days ago:
No? How is a nuclear family discount inherently offensive enough to be worth getting out pitchforks out over? I don’t agree that being bigots is enough either. They are backwards, lots of people are backwards, and harassing them probably won’t yield any constructive outcomes. So if they aren’t actively harming others, then what are you going to achieve here.
As a broader question, who gets to be the arbiter of acceptable harassment?