lvxferre

I was banned for saying Cuba was communist with no value judgment of either the nation or the political system. AFAIK they are the only truly communist nation remaining.

Emphasis mine. That is not how it looks like in the original context:

[OP] If the US stayed out of other countries politics and there were no coups or installation of people favorable to the US what would the world look like?

[You, removed as "rule 1"] Those countries would have been taken over by communist regimes due to support from hostile nations... So like Cuba but all over the place.

You're clearly casting a value judgment over the Cuban political system, and defending US intervention in other countries.

With that out of the way, it's yet another case of rule #1 (no bigotry) being used to prevent people from criticising the admins' views, because they can't be arsed to list in the rules "5. Don't criticise our political views here."

Side note. I do not want to engage on the discussion of capitalism/socialism/communism here, as it falls outside the scope of this community. However:

• Communists distinguish between "socialism" and "communism", as two sequential economic systems. Cuba's regime is socialist, not communist. Since this conflation shows that you aren't communist, it further reinforces reading your comment as casting a negative judgement over the Cuban regime.
• What you're calling "nation" there is "country". For Cuba it doesn't make much of a difference, but for other countries it does.

I saw that entry. It was in lemmy.world, not .ml, and given the target of the joke I don't think that the .ml team would care about it.

So imho the chief issues here are perhaps more related to transparency [...]

Yup, pretty much. They never communicate properly who is removing the content / banning the user, and why. And they clearly don't want to. (Perhaps the .ml admins are waiting for the devs to implement transparency features into Lemmy /s)

If you are a mod from lemmy.ml reading this, go fuck yourself ban me.

You know, at those times I'm really glad that I've stopped moderating comms there. I closed one down, migrated another, but nobody can blame me for condoning this shit.

...my lizard brain is now confused, because it really your question word order as in German to interpret wants, thus still for the ending "is" waiting is.

To bad that one of the biggest meme community is hosted on .ml

Give !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world and !memes@sopuli.xyz a check, perhaps you'll like one (or both) of them.

Hey folks, I just had an amazing idea: a drinking game. Drink a sip when someone gets banned from lemmy.ml, under rule #1, for criticising either Russia or China. Two sips if there's no reasonable way to interpret it as criticism against the populations, only against the State or corporations.

...nah, bad idea. You'll ruin your livers.

Serious now. After checking the modlog, it's clearly a PTB (power-tripping bastards) case. The nearest of something bigoted that I could find in the modlog was

Conspiracy theorists, Populists and Putin Dick sucker will run with this for sure.

This is bad not because you're criticising Putin, or Trump, but because of the expression itself. Even then, it's more of a "Watch your language, you're being homophobic", not grounds for a month long ban. And let us not fool ourselves, this likely had zero impact on your ban.

I'm not assuming when the formalisation happened. I'm saying that it's harder to get everyone to agree on how the orthography is supposed to be, when 2+ governments and populations associated with them are forcing distinctions even when there's none.

You're right that it is not impossible however, and your historical example shows it. Historically Lithuanian is the exception that proves the rule because

• the local population didn't see themselves as Prussians or Russians, but as Lithuanians, so there was a community even across borders; and
• neither Prussia nor Imperial Russia were backing specific varieties of Lithuanian. They were backing German and Russian instead.

And nowadays it's simply not an exception. (I was referring mostly to modern times.)

Instead, books in Latin script were printed in Prussia and distributed in Russia illegally. A handful of people like J. Basanavičius and V. Kudirka ended up in charge of printing most of those books and it made it easy to set language standards. Achieving such a monopoly with a bigger language would be much more difficult.

That's a great tidbit of info, and it's related to what I'm saying: those Lithuanian speakers in Russia only accepted the books as suitable for their language, even if they were printed in Prussia, because they didn't see it as coming from "those other guys".

[Thank you for the info, by the way! Across the whole comment, not just that paragraph.]

That's fair - and it's clear that your moral premises are, like, diametrically opposed to mine (I completely disregard intent - for me responsibility takes the job).

I was aware that you weren't contradicting me but this sort of discussion is fun, sorry!

It's actually easier to come up with a decent orthography for a language with a small number of speakers, as it depends on getting "everyone" (more like "enough people so the opposers can be safely ignored") on the same page. Doubly true when it's a language associated with a single government, because once you get 2+ governments into the bag they tend to force distinctions where there's none.

For English there's an additional issue, the lack of any sort of regulating body like the VLKK. The natives also seem to have a weird pride against diacritics (kind of funny as English spams apostrophes, but OK, not going to judge it).

Italian is the exception that proves the rule. The orthography is well-designed (transparent, without too much fluff), but not even then it could avoid ⟨ch gh⟩ for /k g/ before ⟨e i⟩, so it could reserve ⟨c(i) g(i)⟩ for /tʃ dʒ/.

It's all related: modern European languages typically have a lot more sounds than Latin did, so Latin itself never developed letters for them. Across the Middle Ages you saw a bunch of local solutions for that, like:

• Italian - refer to the etymology to pick a digraph, then solve the /k tʃ g dʒ/ mess with ⟨h⟩.
• Occitan - spam ⟨h⟩ everywhere. (Portuguese borrowed from it.)
• English - spam ⟨h⟩ too.
• Hungarian - spam ⟨y⟩ instead.
• Polish - spam ⟨z⟩, plus a few acute accents (Polish has the retroflex series to handle too, not just the palatal/palato-alveolar like the four above)

I was kind of painting a broad stroke, but you're right - German uses mostly ⟨ch⟩ and ⟨sch⟩. Should've said "English" alone.

A person is good or bad depending on their impact on the people around them; as such I don't consider "misguided" a valid defence.

And while someone can be overall a good person while writing socially harmful and user-hostile software, because they have other qualities that compensate it, writing said software still makes them a worse person.

It’s hard to get someone to understand something when their salary depends on not understanding it

So it's hard to be good when your salary depends on you being bad.

Don't get me wrong. I'm analysing this through my moral views, but I don't think that they're the only valid ones. Your mileage may vary.

My other comment was mostly on how idiotic the whole defence is, not about morality (as this one).