144
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
144 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15893 readers
448 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
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 ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Well, I tried to remove as much bs as possible and make things more neutral without raising any red flags for the editors of Wikipedia. Hopefully, that’s a bit better and they don’t revert it.
I just saw your changes. Nice. I'm not asking you to do to anything more, but as it stands, it still seems unnecessary for a whole article to exist. It could very nicely fit as a single sentence here. Deletion would be ideal, but that is expecting a lot from Wikipedia admins.
I agree. I really don’t see where an execution takes place changes the fact capital punishment is legal. It’s not like there’s an article over execution facilities in the US or Russia.
However, deleting is a long bureaucratic process where you have to argue with a bunch of no-life randos. Many editors consider it bad form to delete and reword large parts of an article then nominate it for deletion. This is viewed as intentional sabotage and bad faith, even if all you do is delete the unreliable sources. This article touches on this crap.