this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
1211 points (100.0% liked)
linuxmemes
21189 readers
838 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudo in Windows.
- No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Patently false. Or are all racist jokes true?
Wiktionary and thefreedictionary.com express that this phrase refers to the subjective belief of a person telling a joke (and I believe that extends to someone laughing at one) rather than that every joke expresses some objective truth.
However, this brings up the idea that subjective biases can prevent someone from actually understanding reality, so independently declaring that something is "100% false" is still dubious.
Do link-aggregation platforms like Lemmy have a documented method for marking things as true or false, other than by trying to change the relative number of upvotes? Community standards regarding what content should be most prominently displayed are documented for Wiktionary and Wikipedia.
Regardless, I don't want to discuss the implications of an aphorism on racism, as any disagreement in that discussion may be interpreted as being against the rules of our instances.