For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
This comment will be pinned and edited to add ideas with popular consensus.
So far:
We will have to do a similar post on El Chisme at some point to see if the sentiment is similar there.
Literally just asking the same people twice. It’s not like the two dunk pages have radically different communities, it’s the same people just arbitrarily splitting their posting between two places because mods told us to.
Formally dropping rule 8 and mending the old dunk/dredge schism would probably be for the best imo. c/gossip's purpose as the prestige slop comm is kind of unclear, and I for one say that all slop should be slop regardless of how prestigious it is.
in my personal opinion, people post slop/gossip in the wrong comm all the time anyway, so I don't think the distinction has been very clear, memorable, or productive.
Adding another 
for getting rid of c/gossip and confining all slop to c/slop.
I love my slop, and it seems silly to try to classify it by notoriety
Merge /c/gossip and /c/slop into /c/slop and remove rule 8. Almost every change to the_dunk_tank/slop thus far has been disastrous:
Adding rule 8 to /c/the_dunk_tank. The old rule 8 was that the person had to be a "public figure," which is so vague (I eventually settled upon "if the person has a Wikipedia article, they count as a public figure.") It's also pointless too. Why does someone having a Wikipedia article or a Twitch channel with an arbitrary amount of subscribers warrant different treatment from someone who doesn't? It just feeds into weird parasocial bullshit. Like, a mayor is more of a public figure than some Twitter account with millions of subscribers by virtue of the mayor being a public servant and the Twitter account being an online rando, but good luck having anyone follow this because "public figure" is a vague term.
Splitting /c/the_dunk_tank into /c/the_dunk_tank and /c/dredge_tank. The (old) rule 8 was terrible, but instead of just rolling back the change, the admins decided to have two comms, one with the rule and one without. And people predictably just posted in the more popular comm because their submitted slop would get more engagement, which contributed more to the mod's workload for no conceivable gain whatsoever to the point where the mods have long since completely given up enforcing the rule that they came up with. I also remember /c/the_dunk_tank, which had the old rule 8, had nothing but Musk tweets for a time since he fits the "public figure" criteria and UlyssesT really loves shitting on Musk.
Picking /c/gossip as its name even with its vaguely misogynistic connotations. I remember so many people complaining about it only for a minority to claim that calling it /c/gossip was "femmes reclaiming a misogynistic slur."
Getting rid of /c/the_dunk_tank because of its racist origins was the right call and /c/slop is a fine name for what /c/slop is. Now, we just need to merge /c/gossip with /c/slop and remove rule 8. People who don't want to see transphobes seething about trans women in sports or Twitter fascists malding over interracial marriages can just block one comm instead of two.
Maybe not comm-specific enough, but why not just ditch rule #8?
I don't really see a reason for this and c/gossip to be separated. Is there a way to tell how many users are subbed to one but not the other? My guess is very few if any.
Having two coms for one thing is kinda silly. I really don't get why it was done
The original idea is that looking at posts of something that a random internet user with no platform and no power said as if it mattered is akin to digital self harm. Initially it was implemented as a blanket ban with no comm where it was allowed, but this comm was added as a substitute. Obviously a lot of people disapproved of it because it felt like admins were stepping in to take away content that users wanted to have, or were unnecessarily making a distinction where none was necessary. Hence the current situation where few users find that rule to be any good at all.
honestly I think the slop takes of important public figures can be just as much self-harm. Have you seen the kind of things Elon Musk posts?
If important people ever say anything worth hearing about, it'll end up in c/news.
Personally, there are absolutely times where consuming any type of slop is bad for me, but I generally find the people who have a bigger audience to be more harmful than the ones who don’t - it’s easier for me to dismiss a shitty take from a nobody than someone with a large following. Overall, that tends to mean that stepping away from all types is the best route for me if I need a break, but that basically means I need to entirely tune out all current events.
Part of where the lines sometimes get too blurry for me is that an r/conservative post with 1.7k upvotes might be posted by a nobody, but it absolutely has reach, while I had no clue who Heather Morgan was until recently, and yet the distinction between the comms wouldn’t help me to filter down to either set of bad takes, even if rule 8 were enforced here.
Mostly some people only wanted to see big celebrity sort of goss while others wanted to still post random Reddit nerds or no name Twitter weirdos. So there's a comm for each
I really don't get why it was done
The old containment comm for posting weird and horrible takes to mock or brigade instituted a rule requiring things posted there to not just be random bad takes from random nobodies with no engagement or support (and this threshold, although never specifically defined, seemed to be around the level of "a reddit comment/post that had at least around a hundred votes on it").
A second comm was made for the real dregs people dredged up somewhere, the random twitter posts with no engagement, reddit comments with single digit scores and no replies, etc.
Both of those got shut down and replaced with renamed equivalents (c/gossip for the high profile stuff, c/slop for the rest) in a struggle session that saw a notorious power poster most known for finding and posting the absolute worst dregs (and for killing Henry Kissinger) delete his account and leave the site.
I don’t either - perhaps it was too implicit, but part of saying “drop the rule” was intended to also be “and close c/gossip in the process”. I’m sure someone has the power to see the deltas, but it might require database queries - I certainly can’t see more than that slop has 704 subscribers and gossip has 514 (and I’m subscribed to neither).
What's rule 8? I'm on mobile and don't see the sidebar.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/El Chisme
Danke schön
on mobile (assuming browser and not an app, idk about those) you have to scroll all the way up to the top of the page and there should be a button to expand the sidebar, its kinda unintuitive
I would also be in favor of abolishing rule 8
I’m fine with merging slop and chisme; while on paper the difference between them is clear, in practice the difference is too fuzzy to be meaningful.
As long as feedback is on the table, the one kind of post on here I don’t like are the ones that are like “check out this reactionary’s hot take” and then it’s a screenshot, or multiple screenshots, of a 30+ comment-deep thread from some random lemmy instance or subreddit. It doesn’t feel in the spirit of the comm, especially if the person posting it is involved in the screenshot exchange. Not sure if there could be a rule regarding it, maybe a lightly-enforced brevity rule?
Maybe just encourage posting it with stuff like CW: Cognitohazard rabbithole
How about c/the_drunk_tank and you can only post if your BAC is above 0.08
I like the grab-bag slop-trough approach of Lemmy drama, random reactionaries on twitter, literal AI slop, posts that belong in other comms, etc.
I'd be interested to see if there's anything people would like either more of or less of.
Merge all dunking communities into /c/dunking
This includes the dunk tank, ~~gossip, which is less racist and more misogynist~~ ~~also gossip but in Spanish which makes it less misogynist somehow, and also slightly more racist?~~ EL CHISME, and slop.
That's it. That's the post.
A slop long divided must unite
Specifically: don't unite gossip and slop
If you’re willing to elaborate, I’d like to better understand:
And in case it’s not clear - I’d love to hear from anyone who agrees too. I upvoted because I want to understand, but presumably the other folks upvoting are doing so more out of agreement.
If I’m coming across as in any way combative in my replies elsewhere and anyone would like to provide their thoughts without having me engage with them further, I’d like to also make it clear that if you want to “pre-emptively disengage from further comments” just let me know and I’ll not reply.
slop backwards is pols
Mfs in the comments saying "oh, merge c/slop and c/gossip" don't know what the preparation for a decapitation strike looks like, apparently.
In seriousness, the distinction between the two comms is too esoteric to be enforceable and most people don't read the sidebar.
Merge would be fine, though I am putting a card down for "6 months from now c/trough splinters into 12 comms that differ only on some hyper-specific ideological point".
My suggestion is that comms not be divided into "good thing vs bad thing", but instead posts be categorized by who is involved and the material impact of the subject. People most often complain that there are posts about things that they don't care about, so basically this splits posts into order of material importance. We are materialists after all, right?
Category 1) news-worthy events
government actions
politicians doing things or talking about policy
world events
category 2) political events and formal commentary
political figure says something related to policy
political organizing
opinion essays/articles
category 3) cultural events (ex https://old.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/ )
political figure says something unrelated to policy
celebrity says something or does something insignificant
internet personality says something
social media trends
category 4) snark (ex r/ShitLiberalsSay)
stupid things that non-famous people say
non-famous internet posts that you hate
internet personalities that you would be ashamed to talk about in public
Category 4 is stuff that you can't explain to a stranger in public. Example, some misogynist on twitter writes a screed about women in video games.
Right now, c/gossip is most similar to category 3 and c/slop is most similar to category 4.
I also would like to consider the idea that "c/gossip" shouldn't just be dunking on things, but instead an observation of pop culture. Roger Waters. being pro-Palestine and Thom Yorke being a Zionist is kind-of in the same category of discussion. Someone who doesn't know or care about who Thom Yorke is, also probably doesn't care about Roger Waters.
Hexbear currently lacks a place for posting cultural events. There are niche entertainment comms, there's no comm for general cultural. Every newspaper has a culture/style section.
I think c/gossip should be a general pop culture discussion, which could include dunks on public figures, but also good things that celebrities do, or weird things that celebrities do. Let the commenter on the post decide whether the thing is good or bad.
Then have c/slop be the dredge comm where you can make fun of internet posts that you don't like.
I think c/slop has a good balance to it
We need a united slop front! Dunks for All!
Seriously though this comm and dunking in general gives me some sanity back. Nice knowing someone out there was similar views to me in this ass-backwards world I'm stuck living in.
i don't think they should be merged, but slop should just be relaxed rules, and gossip more stringent rules, so that people can block comms as they desire (malice of public figures vs general no-names and names malice comm, one is encompassing the other if the poster is confused)
Where would you draw the line on the level of public figure for the other comm? How well known do they need to be before they’re appropriate for it?
Would you keep the name and display name of the other comm as-is, or change one or both?
arbitrary line of 100k subscribers for example (?), heavily tilts to public figure. ngos/professors/people paid for opinions in some sense, fit as well, like new york crimes "journalists". i'm fine with anything, i put in slop something where i can't be bothered to find source and check realness, or just some galaxy brain take with 2 likes, but last time people didn't want to see dicking random no-names, which i find a fair concern so like eh, why break it 
Maria Danzilo is a “Former NYS Senate candidate”. I picked Heather Morgan as an example in another post because I assumed someone who had run for a state-level office did meet criteria. It turns out neither has 100k followers. TNOQuoProQuid has more followers than Maria but less than Heather, but is posting a photo from Chris Geidner who passes the bar. All of these names are new to me, or to the extent they’re not, I don’t remember or recognize them.
The line still seems way too blurry and hard to draw to me 🤷
The official DNC YouTube channel has most of their videos at less than 3,000 views lmaoooooo 🤣
Their videos from Obama's admin and the 2016 election have millions of views. Anything from around 2017 and later? Charlie Kirk's assassination has more traffic.
I ended up with "has a Wikipedia article," which is a completely arbitrary and pointless distinction. But it does work as a criterion.
Haha 🫠
I’m still lost 
