this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2026
490 points (96.9% liked)
196
7211 readers
2190 users here now
Community Rules
You must post before you leave
Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).
Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.
Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.
Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".
Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.
Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.
Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.
Avoid AI generated content.
Avoid misinformation.
Avoid incomprehensible posts.
No threats or personal attacks.
No spam.
Moderator Guidelines
Moderator Guidelines
- Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
- Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
- When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
- Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
- Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
- Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
- Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
- Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
- Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
- Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
- Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
- Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
- First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
- Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
- No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
- Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
- Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So you hate waffles?
That's not how that meme works. You were treating trust as a binary "do not trust" or "trust". They called you out on it because trust is obviously a multi-factor continuum. You might trust your coworker to do their job, but not trust them with your phone passcode. Meanwhile, you might trust a partner with your phone passcode (mileage may vary) but not trust them to make a doctor's appointment because they're anxious or something Obviously it depends on the person, but you get the idea. Trust isn't just a binary "trust" or "not trust".
That's not even taking into account that "the government" isn't actually one singular entity but rather a whole group of individuals who all have their own agendas, some for the better and some for the worse, and it's the citizenry's job to steer the group toward a desired outcome by electing people with similar ideals. For example, would I trust Donald Trump to have anyone's interest in mind but himself? No. But I would trust Mamdani to have people's best interest in mind. That doesn't mean I trust or distrust "the government" but rather that I trust people in government who've shown they deserve it and distrust those who've shown they don't. And I would trust neither with my phone passcode. Trust is not binary.
Propagandists hate this guy.
My absolute distrust of governments does not conclude literally anything about my perspective on trust in personal relationships, you waffle hater.
Out of curiosity, do you believe that the "waffle hater" concept implies that all forms of analogy are flawed and not to be used? I think you're confusing the waffle hater thing for "I don't understand how analogies work". Or are a troll. My troll radar is terrible.
I'm engaging earnestly / not trolling. You can disagree with me but I'm not just stating random BS.
They took my statement about distrusting governments and concluded I have a bad relationship with trust in personal relationships. But those are fundamentally different things.
Even if I trusted every individual in a group, that doesn't necessarily mean I should trust the group behavior. One easy example is the Tragedy of the Commons but there are better examples if you spend more time on it. I trust farmers to care for their land and try to grow the best crops with the resources as their disposal; I do not trust them to collectively reduce water consumption for the health of the ecosystem. Etc. Trusting group behavior is fundamentally different from trusting individuals. They didn't make a metaphor I disagreed with they just took my statement A and made a totally unrelated conclusion about B. Hence waffle vs pancake.
I could make a stronger argument centered on distrust of government but the above serves to defend the waffle refutation specifically.
Right. But you can see the implied logical step right?
I also distrust the government as a starting default. But as soon as I have more specific information about specific members of that group, I change my trust level to reflect the more specific data I now have rather than falling back to my default assumptions inherited from the group.
Let's use your analogy. If one farmer did use water responsibly, would you not encourage, and set them up as a model example of The Good Farmer? Or would you scoff and say "give them time. All farmers are selfish in the end"?
So you don't trust that the government will take money from you in the form of taxes?
Google False Literalism
Google Equivocation
You lost? No one mentioned waffles.
Google en passant
I don't give anywhere near enough of a shit to chase down whatever thing it is you are trying to reference. Just say what you actually mean.
holy hell