Putting somebody on the stand doesn’t mean they’re on trial. Witnesses tend to be as public as the rest of the trial. So this could be not public at all due to factors like children having to give testimony or state security being on the line. I’m sure there are more reasons and those may differ from one jurisdiction to the next. Or the trial is public.

There may be rules to safeguard the identity of witnesses, such as principal witnesses who just by speaking out endanger their lives (e.g. in organized crime). A vigilante is by definition doing illegal stuff so they may refuse to give evidence based on the fact they would have to incriminate themselves. But I don’t think any court would entertain the idea of having a Batman figure in costume take the stand to give evidence. By protecting the identity the court would tacitly approve of illegal vigilantism. That probably only works in comic books.

Wouldn’t another possibility be active fare dodging? And if they do that, can’t they just fill the station and trains with so many people until they are forced to run the train to manage the crowd? I imagine all able people will go piggyback through turnstiles to half the fare at least.

In terms of potentially fineable behavior, this might be safer than creating an ad hoc ped xing on an interstate.

Maybe the NJ locals need to weigh in on how likely the constabulary will be to make use of their firearms in such a situation.

You’d probably have to doxx yourself a bit to have a chance of a good answer.

Like @Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com suggested, it’s probably the future orbital debris that will keep us trapped on this planet no matter what, i.e. satellites. More specifically the ones for internet service in low orbit. When they move into position they often move in a string of pearls formation.

So it’s that, aliens, or the unimpressive prelude to our armageddon.

Is this a new account asking 500 questions in a single post? Are you AI? What even are you? Why is living suffering?

I read through that last link and then the first comment is asking why this AI wall of text. There is also very little evidence meat on that bone. A user did this, a user got that. That’s not receipts, that’s just more claims.

The claims of censorship are non sensical to me. You can still post most of that stuff, just not on that instance. An instance isn’t a democracy and no one has the right to be heard there no matter what. Your right is to go elsewhere. It’s a living room sofa problem. If you came to my house and took a dump on my sofa, I’d kick you out too. As it is my house, I get to decide what constitutes a dump. You thought it was just a fart, I smelled a shart - you’re out anyway. You are free to go sit on somebody else’s sofa. Go somewhere else, vote with your feet. Sure, tell others about my tight ass sofa rules. You still haven’t convinced me of your OG conclusion.

I’m still not excluding the possibility that there is something rotten in the state of Lemmy dot world. Maybe that admin is indeed on a power trip. What a decade on reddit and now a few years on Lemmy have shown me is that most bans are not shot from the hip. “I just said maybe Israel isn’t so nice and got banned IMMEDIATELY,” professed the user innocently. And then the admin comes back with three documented community violations including threatening the moderators with violence. Exceptions are rare. If you had a “no violence” rule, then “death to Zionists” would be functionally the same as “death to all little old ladies,” a no-go. You don’t get to decide what constitutes a dump and since the fediverse is larger than Lemmy dot world you’re also not being censored.

The people who fact check news for a living are journalists. They exist on a spectrum from dubious to trustworthy. You’ll have you find some that you like.

While it is possible today to check a lot of stuff yourself online, you can’t do it all. And if you are, you already are doing a journalist’s job.

Is lemmy.world anti-humanity for banning anti-Zionists?

The quick answer is: probably no. You claim this is the case, provide no receipts, and most importantly don’t place these terms into enough context. And context matters.

I don’t know if you’re right. You might be. I’m not excluding that possibility.

No instance is under any obligation to tolerate all opinions. Other admins may defederate, users may move away and block. All moderation decisions are shit. It’s much easier to have principles than to apply them equally everywhere and without fail.

If they have indeed chosen to err on the side of what I’m going to call something like antisemitic caution and remove stuff more broadly than you are comfortable with, it’s not just a question of values. It’s could also be a reflection of their experience with this topic, the resulting workload, and lack of moderation manpower. It’s much easier to ban all boobs than having to differentiate with each post if they’re breastfeeding or not, to put this in the context of past moderation problems. Facebook isn’t opposed to breastfeeding as a function to suckle our offspring but as the proprietors of their platform they can ban all boob related posts. And while this is of course within the realm of apples to oranges comparisons, I don’t think it’s justified to leap to the conclusion you did based on moderation decisions alone.

From the way you phrased that, I suspect you already have a opinion and you’re not looking for a reasonable debate. New account also just for this one. Thank you for rage baiting with us today.

They don’t wake up one morning and yell small government. The more liberal social frog inside of you will also get boiled eventually by imperceptible temperature changes in the water over a long time. Conservative thinking isn’t generally synonymous with xenophobia. It’s more about low taxes, no handouts to anyone, tough on crime, that sort of thing. The xenophobia aspect is a perversion of that, which sadly isn’t uncommon but not a forgone conclusion generally speaking. The fact that the MAGAs have made this synonymous with conservative thinking in the US speaks to the success of their movement built on fear, lies, hate, and generations worth of people failed by their education system.

Many reasons. The older one gets, the more stuff if not wealth one has acquired, the more one stands to lose. That has most people make a turn for conservative viewpoints if they weren’t there already.

Also, as the Peter Principle in the workplace (I paraphrase: everybody gets eventually promoted to a position they are not qualified to do well) old people get to an age where they overestimate their worldly knowledge.

Getting old is shit. Your joints hurt, hair grows out of weird spots, people around you move to farms upstate. Things you loved from when you were crisp and shiny get swept by the wayside by progress. You have a lot more to complain about now because you also have more time for it. And you wait an awful lot at doctor’s clinics.

Not all people do all of these things all the time but there average person will tick at least two of these broad boxes. There is nothing you can do really. Listen but don’t take to heart the crap. I draw a line at right-wing politics and hurtful -isms. If my parents didn’t cross into that territory I turned my head into an extractor fan.

When you were little, they wiped shit out of your ass crack and worried about you when you were sick. As a bonus they now get you annoy you. The circle of life.

I get it, you’re okay with it. And I would allow then to continue funding it if their environmental conscience demanded it. And if they sailed there or even flew economy I’d still allow them to pull a trigger themselves. But I think overall this idea that rich and most likely Caucasian asshole money is required to keep conservation projects in Africa going smacks of a school of post colonial thinking that I don’t subscribe to. Africans are not solely motivated by asshole money to preserve their ecosystems.

As I said, I agree with you. As another commenter said, big tobacco lied and got caught and punished. Big booze hasn’t risen to quite that level. Additionally and unfortunately, alcoholics and gambling addicts are probably a relatively small part of the population and less likely to vote. And politics is a numbers game. We live in a relatively fucked up world. Where convicted sexual assaulters can still be president. Where the only person convicted from a pedophile gang is a woman. And where you need to be stronger than most of us to not fall off the wagon. But you can translate this justified anger into political change. This must be an issue that has an action group in politics somewhere, which you could seek out and support.

How is that legal?

Those considerations are always a trade-off. How much government should interfere with an industry, especially one that’s been around since we monkeys climbed down from the trees? There isn’t just the plight of alcoholics to consider. An advertisement ban would affect business and jobs. It would take a considerable chunk out of the advertising market that when gone world affect media, an already struggling industry. And AA doesn’t quite have the deep pockets for lobbying. It’s legal because it’s complicated, not because it’s just.

I happen to agree with you here; ads for alcohol should be banned along with those for any sort of gambling and prescription medication while I’m at it. This “drink responsibly” campaign is an effort to make it harder for lawmakers to decide. I’m reminded of that Soviet Union quote and i’m paraphrasing: we know that they know that we know that they know they’re lying yet the lying continues.

One day at a time.

Hunting is part of conservation efforts. Hunting tourism is not necessary. Rich assholes flying around the world in private jets just at that they can shoot at a different type of animal than at home is questionable.

And I know they weren’t hunting elephants. It’s just if I were charged by a herd of elephants and I happened to hold a rifle in my hand, I’d probably be tempted to make use of it in self defense. And the animals could have hurt themselves while acting in self defense from their POV as well.

Keep in mind that you are talking about a German supermarket chain and you want to protest a company headquartered in Israel. Their reaction may lack rationality.

Do what you think is right. Just be aware of the possible consequences.

Unnecessary or annoying are perhaps not the standard to judge this by. I think legally you could be in trouble. Inside your local supermarket isn’t the place for a protest. Trying to dissuade customers from buying certain products by tempering with the merchandise, even if it’s just a post it note, will at the very least get you barred from shopping there and at worst a day in court. If you are unlucky, this has the potential to be a decision you’ll rue.

Look at what kind of protest is allowed where you are. Because the rules aren’t universal. But holding a placard on the public space in front of the store may be the safer option.

The fact that this hunting tourism exists is more than infuriating. When people die it cannot be mildly infuriating; even when a-holes kick the bucket. So why is this story here? Which bit is only mildly infuriating?

I hope the elephants are alright.

ai;dr.

Talk to somebody about how you feel. A real person, not some randos on the internet. A person who is maybe qualified to give good advice. Sell the gun as well. The diversion with hard work at sea may sound like a solid plan right now. But it may not address the root causes for how you feel. And the feeling may not be improved while being tossed around by 100ft waves in the Indian Ocean or something in a year or two.

If you have noticed a political bias then you are a political person.