You know what they say: Alex and Philip don't make Robert

I've taken a look at the moderator log, and they are pretty consistent about it.

I can understand the concern - seeing this post caused me to go take a look.

I'm open to my mind being changed, but it appears to me that they pretty consistently remove jokes with a sexual component, and often suggest c/unclejokes as an alternative place for posting them.

At the moment, this looks to me to be a community rule that not everyone agrees with, but a reasonable rule to have and enforce. It certainly does not break the Lemmy.World TOS.

The job of a moderator is to act as a janitor and facilitator. They remove spam, bigotry, and posts that don't fit. And then hopefully help ensure the things that do fit are allowed - so the community then upvotes/downvotes on what they like or don't like. But it is worth bearing in mind that moderators are all volunteers, and in addition to being a janitor and facilitator, they have often created the communities in question, and so should and do have a hand in how those communities operate. Ideally, it's a balance between what the community wants and the vision the mod has for the community.

I will also say that 1) everyone's opinions on what crosses lines are different, and 2) after moderating in various places for 30 years of my life, I can say that a surprising amount of content requires subjective calls to be made, even with brilliantly objective rules. Context is surprisingly critical in many cases, for example, although in this instance, it's more about where lines are drawn and what exactly is "sexual".

I personally don't have any problems with this joke at all, and if I were the mod, I think I wouldn't worry about what actual children might think of jokes - but that's where this community is, and this removal seems reasonable to me based on that rule.

Fair enough! Wish the mod was weighing in here at least then.

remove jokes with a sexual component

What is sexual about being gay? Is mentioning "Dad jokes" talking about sex because dads usually become dads by having sex?

In the reddit AITH and similar communities, it's ESH, everyone sucks here.

Personally I think there could be a better term, but that's the one that's the most commonly used.

Pedantry is great for influencing people and making new friends.

I don't see it as a "kids don't understand gay people", and I think the mod was justified.

I'm grateful this forum has the respect to give me the courage to share my feelings. Just kidding! Downvote away.

Good removal but clearly for the wrong reason.

This is a husband joke, not a dad joke. It's almost like a dad joke but hasn't reached its final form.

How many 3-6 year olds could there possibly be using Lemmy??

Not a dad joke since it’s actually hilarious.

Also, what a PTB.

If I were you (which I am) I would know for sure it's at least 2

Unfortunately, some Lemmy instances allow conservatives. Wherever you have conservatives, you have bigotry.

Conservatism is cancer. It should be eradicated. Especially in positions of authority or any place where free speech is valued.

3-6

And they're a year old? Damn, they learned FAST

You're a bigot Harry.

Interesting choice to make a reference written by a known transphobe.

Maybe people should be reporting those other posts mentioning heterosexual couples to make a point.

Mods would just ban people for pointing out the posts or comments breaking rules rather than addressing the issues being reported

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with that comment honestly.

Lemmy.world not beating the allegations again.

I'd tag them, but de-anonymizing (sp?) mods is against the rules of YPTB 🤷🏻

Interesting choice to double down on being ignorant while policing other people's expression.

It's frightening someone with your worldview is an admin. But I guess that says a lot about where we're at hey.

Oh really? I missed that rule, I thought it was just using admin powers to reveal them was the no no. There's only one mod of that community.

There's only one mod of that community.

Hence why I'd be able to know who to tag without being an admin myself 😁

I'm pretty sure that we're not supposed to mention even the most guessable identity if it's not in the modlog entry, though 🤷🏻

That's wild when the first posting guideline is

Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?

Seems like that's a tricky path to walk when posting here.

@db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com Any chance we could get clarification on the naming of PTB mods here? @unruffled@anarchist.nexus

Its the joys of how hard it is to convey sarcasm on the internet 😂.

Favorite removal reason from world is making too many reports so deleting instantly rather than locking

Speaking as a cishet, we mostly aren't right but most of us are wrong in better ways 😉

From what i've seen from the modlog, I would expect a joke that revolved around dad referencing sex with mom (or their sexuality at all) would also get removed.

Note that I don't personally agree with the rule, it's just a rule I don't see as problematic, nor being enforced unfairly.

Why don't you have a problem with "bisexual" not being considered "gay"? Because you've decided that's okay. And I don't disagree necessarily, because for example we have LGBTQ+ which separates out the letters. But if you reduce that to a single word, it would probably be "gay", meaning that bisexuality is also gay.

I'm sure it would surprise some of the commentors calling me a bigot to learn that my wife is bisexual. Not that you can't have members of some class being bigots. But I'd imagine it would sitll surprise them. Nor do most people who don't actually give a shit about the conversation and who are just looking for a convenient target to hate care much either. Which is not you, which is why I gave you an actual reply.

It's not surprising to me at all that you would say nasty things without knowing anything about me and making baseless assumptions.

I would expect a joke that revolved around dad referencing sex with mom (or their sexuality at all) would also get removed.

Where in the OP does it talk about having sex?

Why don’t you have a problem with “bisexual” not being considered “gay”? Because you’ve decided that’s okay. And I don’t disagree necessarily, because for example we have LGBTQ+ which separates out the letters. But if you reduce that to a single word, it would probably be “gay”, meaning that bisexuality is also gay.

This has nothing to do with this post. To clarify though, I'm a bisexual woman. Sometimes I call myself gay, but it's not quite the right term. And you don't get to dictate what someone identifies as for their sexual orientation.

There is nothing inherently sexual about the original post.

I was responding to a judgement you made. That's not a baseless assumption mate, there's literal writing on the wall here of you making an ignorant comment as an admin to defend a moderation mistake.

I don't know anything about you other than what you've said here and I joked you were a bigot but I admit that was hasty. You may be truly ignorant about your judgement backing that 3-6 yo kids can't learn about queer people even though in our world people from those families have kids of their own.

It might seem reasonable to classify sexuality as something of a sexual nature, but you're talking about people's lives here. Someone has to go to school one day in a world where other kids parents told them their parents are perverted. The views you expressed here legitimise that world.

Yeah, Bi myself so I very much appreciate the joke. I just also try to give a berth for people to set whatever rules for a community. Not a rule I like or will accept to continue participating, but if the rule was just plainly "No X" and "X" gets posted I wouldn't necessarily fault the mod for enforcing the rules as they were, just wouldnt want to be in their comm.

I’m once again annoyed that the default term became homo”sexuality,” and not homoromanticism, because A) why the fuck does anyone who’s not an immediate prospect need to know about anyone’s sexuality? B) the phoneme sexuality implies… sexuality, so it just gives a bunch of bad faith motherfuckers ammunition; C) most of the time it’s actually referring to homoromanticism; and D) even when it’s not, the majority of people would describe a homosexual and heteroromantic person as straight (or closeted :[ ).

You're right. I was flattening sexual/romantic attraction and being overly loose with what qualifies discussing sex. I dont agree with the rule and will avoid the comm if that doesnt get amended, but my go to first standard in this comm is "was this mod action even in the rules" before I get to "should it be in the rules"

I'll try to clarify a bit more. This is going to be based on what I think a dad joke should be, so we might disagree on that.

A dad joke should basically be a very short, pun-based joke that would make a 5 year old laugh, but causes and adult to roll their eyes.

I have absolutely no issue with 5 year olds knowing about sexual orientations or gender identity. I grew up with quite early and liberal sex ed and I don't think it was a bad thing.

Still, OPs joke just doesn't meet the requirments. It requires knowing the difference between gay and bi as well as understanding that this difference is not broadly understood in society, thus you get to the "setup" where you assume a man with a husband must be gay. Only then to subvert the expectation by him denying being gay, because only his husband is.

I think it's quite a tall order to expect a 5 year old to put that all together and actually laugh at the joke. On the other hand I think it's quite a good joke and certainly not rolling my eyes about it.

I have no idea if the mod in question removed the post for bigoted reasons or just worded it badly. But I'd say that the joke in question didn't belong on dadjokes.

PTB & bigotry

1. Lemmy.world ban kids to use their instance, also users of other instances. (Or at least it was their policy)

1. There are marriage jokes in the community.

Edited: The requirement is in the comm rules, not to protect kids, but for the level of complexity of the joke. I would suggest to the mod to rethink that rule when it can be use to hidden oppresed collectives.

All you have to do to illustrate how stupid this removal is, is to imagine this couple also has a kid, whom this joke is told infront of.

Spoilers: The kid likely isn't going to get it, in the same way that many many kids cartoons make reference based jokes and quips, and even mildly raunchy jokes that kids also do not understand... unless the context has already been previously explained to them.

Thats the point, thats how they work as jokes, you need the context otherwise its meaningless.

Then the other part of the joke is you get it while the kid doesn't, the joke landing two different ways at the same time makes you feel more knowledgable, that joke is for you, the parent/guardian, so the show is fun for you too.

Even if there were 3-6 yo lemmy users... the logic for removing this still doesn't actually make sense.

Part of the cleverness of the joke is that it is indecipherable to a kid that doesn't understand sex or sexuality... it thus doesn't 'expose' kids to anything they don't already understand.

Equating gay/bi people with sex and therefore inappropriate for children is a tactic of bigotry. The same argument was used to say that it's wrong for Mr. Ratburn to get married on Arthur, despite the episode being completely innocuous, or for any of the lgbtq characters in Steven Universe to exist. It's literally an argument to exclude queer people from society.

But this isn't a joke about sex. This is a joke about romantic orientation - which usually coincides with one's sexual orientation, sure, but they aren't the same thing.

Saying that queerness is inherently sexual is a bigoted stance to take, and it's a bad look if you're defending it. And that remains true even if you have a queer partner or even if you're queer yourself. Since you want to use having a queer partner as a defense for your logic, why don't you ask her what she thinks of this situation? She may not agree with your take on it.

So then, go ahead and say what you really really meant, but i ensure you that extrapolating from what you uttered until now that you are probably only going to dig your grave deeper.

~~They are probably projecting hard. I had a few situations where gay people were hitting on me, which made me feel uncomfortable - not because i care that someone else is gay, but because i absolutely do not find men attractive and have self-confidence issues making it difficult to say no, especially in a bar (edit: not a gay bar) where everyone is already somewhat drunk. ~~

~~I can absolutely understand that some men might have similar issues, where the thought of hooking up with another man simply feels icky. Difference is: do i let that feeling cloud my judgement in general or am i mature enough to separate those things? These people are still stuck in high school from a development standpoint, and thats both sad and dangerous. ~~

Edit: I was wrong, see my other comment.

Reddit has been certailing speach for a while now, I pointed out on the Canadian politics sub that I'd notice their were quite a few more posts about the national post then their were other Canadian news agencys and I got banned imidiatly for it.

Well now you've done it. You're going to get removed for being racist.

The name of this community (are they still called magazines here?) is Ye Power Trippin' Bastards, so presumably PTB = Power Trippin' Bastards.

It is indeed ;)

Times to play "check that mod's hard drive"

linguist here. you mean «homoeros» (ὁμόερoσ) “samelove” (Greek), not “man/mankind romance” (as opposed to “anserromantic” gooselover) (Latinus)

I kind of just assumed everyone on these boards was 3-6 years old. Are they not?

I mean, op didn't say they were a square or a triangle so they should be good with their baby being able to see them.

Fellow linguist here. I did get it wrong, but I meant heteroromanticism, which is an existing term because I’m not a prescriptivist :)

the topic of sexuality

not a prescriptivist

ok amelatinæ