(Example at the end)

Usually we discuss stereotypes in terms of how they are harmful—which is good because it’s super important to recognize and confront the stereotypes that perpetuate systems of oppression and hurt. That doesn’t mean all of them are harmful, though. Some are neutral and and some are a net positive. If you can think of neutral ones that’s fine but I’m especially interested in the constructive and beneficial ones. Hopefully I’m explaining this well enough but if it becomes clear I didn’t I’ll delete this post.

Example: I usually encourage people, especially kids and pedestrians, to assume that drivers can’t see you. While it’s not necessarily true even a majority of the time, it’s nevertheless a constructive stereotype to hold in terms of road safety.

this wasn’t one but also making a ManBearPig reference in current year should be a felony

This is inspired by this advice from a few months ago:

Stop giving shitty mods a free pass. Honest mistakes happen; but if the mod in question is assumptive, disingenuous, trigger-happy, or eager to enable certain shitty types of user, spread the word about their comm being poorly moderated. And don’t interact directly with the comm. I think that at least here in the Fediverse we should demand higher standards from our mods.

(Emphasis mine.)

In the past I have used places like !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world or !196@lemmy.blahaj.zone to call out mods on other subs, with mid-to-almost-high degrees of success, but I wonder if it would be better to have a dedicated sublemmy?

Here are my thoughts on what would make this effective:

• probably shouldn’t be hosted on .world due to the breadth of possible conflicts of interest with admins
• probably shouldn’t be hosted on .ml due to federation hurdles
• mods of the community shouldn’t moderate any other communities of any significant size, in order to make the whole “accountability” thing work
• mods should be willing and able to deal with substantial quantities of garbage posts because there would be a lot of “why won’t c/xyz let me be transphobic/say slurs 😡😡” type submissions which, left unaddressed, would outflood genuine criticism

This is still in conceptual form so I am interested what others think :)

will prob delete. Prob offensive

Edit: Interesting, didn’t expect this post to be controversial. Here’s some of my reasoning:

Democrats became gradually more progressive in their border policy between 2000-2016. In the mid-2000s, many prominent Democrats in Congress supported significant spending on security fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border and were critical of “sanctuary cities.” By contrast, during the Trump administration, Democrats were largely united against most of Trump's immigration and border security initiatives, including opposing funding for a proposed border wall. The evolution in Democratic views on immigration is clear when comparing the party’s 2012 platform, which promoted a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants but with certain conditions, to the 2016 platform, which removed all caveats on the path to citizenship source.

I feel the early Trump era provided vindication that allowed some real expression of what equity looks like in border policy. (That said, I do readily admit my “chad” symbolism is a bit strong; rather I think it’s just that the DNC allowed more space for these voices at the time.)

However, all this progress has recently been lost since the election of the current incumbent, as Democrats have leaned back into border security, implicitly admitting that the conservative framing of the issue is a valid concern.