We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
But thanks for your comment, which has highlighted that we should moderate this kind of content more strictly, since it's progenitors are clearly trollish who indulge in ad hominem.
You might be interested in the following discussion on moderation going on at the moment: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/242082#comment-242180
At this point, we don't feel there is a strong argument to be made for moderators not to have or share their opinions: after all, wouldn't you rather know why your post might be moderated as trollish rather than moderators operating in the shadows and secretly?
Second, some topics simply get no responses or engagement. LI is supposed to be a platform for the open exchange and discussion of ideas. When no one responds, just like in a political panel debate, it should be the moderator's job to play devil's advocate or provide a counterpoint. If the counterparty fails to engage, the moderator should terminate the discussion or at least not invite them back to the table in future.
See the post above, you are hereby put on notice: Unless you provide a well-reasoned, bona-fide post here, any future similar posts crying about how biased and mean the moderator is, will not be published because they add no value to the discussion.
2. Instead, you go ad hominem again, which has apparently been a standard playbook for Elon and his fanboys.
Therefore, this is our last attempt. Please consider yourself put on notice and future posts (or any likely-trollish 'culture war' posts) like this may not be published at all anymore, if you do not display a bona fide attempt to engage with the below questions.
3. Genuine question: what "critical science debates" has wokeness shut down?
Politics / society - sure, arguably some topics have become holy cows online and people get 'cancelled' or thrown off platforms for being racist, with the high watermark of the culture wars perhaps being the JK Rowling trans debate.
But how is wokeness any worse than many religions that way, which aren't great at tolerating criticism (and have often even resulted in real-world violence)? Or any other strong political belief, for that matter, that does not tolerate dissent?
And surely the current dispensation is at least as intolerant of dissent and criticism of its policies or politics as 'the wokes'?
As outlined above, if you are a genuine operator and are actually interested in discourse rather than shitposting or constantly crying about 'oh no, the wokes!' and resorting to insults when someone disagrees with you, we will expect a response from you (or others who share your views).
Failure to do so, will result in effective soft-bans on topics which have little to do with law, are political in nature, and unlikely to be posted with any interest in a discussion (we have engaged with enough such posts in the last few weeks and received no responses other than ad hominem, so it should not be difficult to identify these - they also receive very little traffic on LI, so the trade-off will be worth it)
Second: if everyone else can comment anonymously on LI, why can't LI moderator?
Do you have any holidays saved up so you can take a week off to recover for now and consider your further options without work stress interfering?
Twitter was a toxic cesspit and will likely get even more of a toxic cesspit, and you're right, if Elon tries to implement anything-goes zero-moderation, some governments (not just the US) will step in faster and harder than a Tesla accelerates.
Actually, quite funny. When moderator asks questions that trolls have no answers to / try to rein in untruths, trolls get into ad hominem. Don't shoot the messenger, write more intelligent messages. 🙏
Controversial opinion, is namaste / thank you emoji even more pass-ag and uncool? 🙏
Because if you don't manage to achieve either of those aims, Putin will be be backed into a corner that could be quite uncomfortable for a lot of people concerned.
I.e., do we really want to emulate the US' strategy in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, which has not worked out very well for most people concerned (and those were countries without nukes).
A cull as you suggest is also not free to do in an organised manner, or even if you are planning to offer bounties to vigilantes to pick up and murder dogs on streets.
And it's a short-term 'solution': you'd effectively be planning a genocide of the entire species, except ones that escape and go feral. Any that remain, would start breeding again and populations would increase, and you'd have to keep killing more dogs year-by-year.
Finally, how to 'solve' the practical aspects: who decides which dogs get to live and which die? Will exceptions be made for stray guard-dogs, or strays that have been adopted or are loved by a community?