1
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 May 2025
1 points (66.7% liked)
Political Discussion and Commentary
749 readers
11 users here now
A place to discuss politics and offer political commentary. Self posts are preferred, but links to current events and news are allowed. Opinion pieces are welcome on a case by case basis, and discussion of and disagreement about issues is encouraged!
The intent is for this community to be an area for open & respectful discussion on current political issues, news & events, and that means we all have a responsibility to be open, honest, and sincere. We place as much emphasis on good content as good behavior, but the latter is more important if we want to ensure this community remains healthy and vibrant.
Content Rules:
- Self posts preferred.
- Opinion pieces and editorials are allowed on a case by case basis.
- No spam or self promotion.
- Do not post grievances about other communities or their moderators.
Commentary Rules
- Don’t be a jerk or do anything to prevent honest discussion.
- Stay on topic.
- Don’t criticize the person, criticize the argument.
- Provide credible sources whenever possible.
- Report bad behavior, please don’t retaliate. Reciprocal bad behavior will reflect poorly on both parties.
- Seek rule enforcement clarification via private message, not in comment threads.
- Abide by Lemmy's terms of service (attacks on other users, privacy, discrimination, etc).
Please try to up/downvote based on contribution to discussion, not on whether you agree or disagree with the commenter.
Partnered Communities:
• Politics
• Science
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
Both, because nuance exists. You can have a law that says 'No smoking weed in public, except in parks or other outdoor areas where the smell is less likely to bother others.' Where rights and freedoms intersect it makes sense to limit both in ways that are reasonable in the context of their impact on the rights of others.
This seems reasonable, but then at what point do we say "no" to making dedicated spaces because someone thought their rights are being infringed?
Separate spaces for smoking are common. What about dedicated spaces where street music performers can perform and others where they can't?
What if someone doesn't want to see tattoos? At what point do you say "your annoyance is unreasonable"? I mean surely this one is, but is there a guideline that separates this from playing loud music?
A extreme case would be someone who wishes to make a space free of a certain race. Obviously this is ridiculous and bad, but I am seeking a guideline that can separate these unreasonable ones from the reasonable ones.
If you want to line to be somewhere other than where it is right now I think the onus is on you to show that where it is now is causing harm. You aren't harmed by seeing tattoos despite not wanting to, you can't reasonably expect everyone else to cover them up just because they offend you. If they trigger trauma or something individuals may be swayed by sympathy to hide theirs around you out of respect, but that's a choice they make, not a thing you can legislate upon them. Like if you're bad enough off that outlawing the public display of tattoos seems like a reasonable solution then what you have is a 'you problem', not an 'everyone else' problem, and you need to figure out how to get past that so that you can function in the world because it's unreasonable to expect the world to change around you to suit you.
There is no hard and fast guideline other than the general sense of what's reasonable that people develop by interacting. As I said in another comment under this post it's all contingent and case-by-case. Does the harm caused by X outweigh the harm caused by the harm/trouble/inconvenience/etc caused by the negation of X? If so the line probably needs to move.