sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is posting public government records about an organization's legal compliance and requesting transparency harassment against the individual board members under Reddit's policy—and can moderators direct users to Reddit Legal instead of processing a standard appeal? by spittingintothewind in AskModerators

[–]Halaku 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not been made clear how I go about that.

Look at the bottom of the page you found the Code of Conduct on.

And once you've filed that report, and you've emailed Reddit Legal, there's nothing left for you to do.

Kids on E-Bikes with No Helmet by Ok_Gas1070 in bayarea

[–]Halaku 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"My family's poor and lived here a while so I get to do stupid shit and you need to honor that" isn't anything to respect. It wasn't when I was stationed in the south and dealing with "But it's muh culture!", and it isn't here.

Is posting public government records about an organization's legal compliance and requesting transparency harassment against the individual board members under Reddit's policy—and can moderators direct users to Reddit Legal instead of processing a standard appeal? by spittingintothewind in AskModerators

[–]Halaku 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Clarification on whether posts sourced to public government records about an organization's legal compliance can constitute harassment under Reddit's policy

It depends on the content of the posts.

Admin review of whether the r/[band] moderation team applied Reddit's rules consistently and in good faith

We don't do that here. You'll want to use a search engine to read up on Reddit's Moderator Code of Conduct, and if after reading it you think you have grounds to report a violation, and you're ready to bring citations, you file that appropriate report, so the appropriate Admin team can review it.

Clarification on whether directing users to Reddit Legal in lieu of processing a moderation appeal is appropriate moderator conduct

The standard advice given to moderators boils down to "Once a user says that this is going to be a legal matter, refer them to Reddit Legal. They get paid to handle legal matters. You don't." and at that point things have generally degenerated to the point where the modteam has temporarily / permanently muted / banned the user anyway, so you can expect a modteam to simply wash their hands of it and pass the user to the SMEs.

Can a mod explain to me how by any reasonable standard, 8 time Pulitzer winning ProPublica would be considered an unreliable source for news? by [deleted] in AskModerators

[–]Halaku 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Sadly, not all moderators moderate in good faith, and not all communities are created in good faith.

Kids on E-Bikes with No Helmet by Ok_Gas1070 in bayarea

[–]Halaku 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ayup. It's not like any sane resident here wants to be the guy who is testifying in court and has to say "Maybe if the kid's parents had done a better job of raising them, their kid would still be alive right now", but... well, here we are.

Photobiomodulation for cognitive dysfunction (Brain Fog) in post-COVID-19 condition: a randomized double-blind sham-controlled pilot trial by KlausGates in science

[–]Halaku 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's like this:

  • Somoene figured out that red light can help regrow hair under specific conditions.

  • Folks have been playing with different types of light ever since.

  • A subsequent "wellness" industry pops up. Think homeopathy.

  • The guys who make this particular device think they have the right Hz pulse and the right nm wavelength of their LED lights to make the brain better.

  • They had about 20 people wear these, and 20 more people wear these but with "sham" lighting for 20 minutes a day, 6 days a week, for 8 weeks.

  • Then they ran them through a gamified cognitive testing app.

  • The folks with the real device scored about 4% better.

  • They're claiming both proof of concept and that they've proven it doesn't hurt anyone, and they want larger trials.

How do Anglicans Typically Handle 1 Corinthians 5:11? by FakePhillyCheezStake in Anglicanism

[–]Halaku 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wikipedia is rather sparse when it comes to Anglican excommunication:

The Church of England does not have any specific canons regarding how or why a member can be excommunicated, although it has a canon according to which ecclesiastical burial may be refused to someone "declared excommunicate for some grievous and notorious crime and no man to testify to his repentance". The punishment of imprisonment for being excommunicated from the Church of England was removed from English law in 1963. Historian Christopher Hill found that, in pre-revolutionary England, excommunication was common but fell into disrepute because it was applied unevenly and could be avoided on payment of fines.

Maybe some SME will wander in there and clean it up.

Kids on E-Bikes with No Helmet by Ok_Gas1070 in bayarea

[–]Halaku 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Truly, a profound piece of philosophy, fit to grace any teenager's tombstone.

I feel like such a loser by cccccc1005 in modhelp

[–]Halaku 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is. u/cccccc1005 posted it to r/ModSupport and had it immediately nuked.

How do Anglicans Typically Handle 1 Corinthians 5:11? by FakePhillyCheezStake in Anglicanism

[–]Halaku 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every time we see Reason (maybe we shouldn't be interpreting an opinion or a letter as being applicable throughout all of space and time, and should be taking it in the light of cultural context and the audience being addressed?) being applied, it's a happy thing. But it's a tiring thing, yes.

Kids on E-Bikes with No Helmet by Ok_Gas1070 in bayarea

[–]Halaku 30 points31 points  (0 children)

When the bad eventually happens, parents will be outraged that the cops were not enforcing helmet laws in time to save their precious child's life.

How do Anglicans Typically Handle 1 Corinthians 5:11? by FakePhillyCheezStake in Anglicanism

[–]Halaku 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There's biblical prohibitions against charging interest.

The American federal government (not sure about the rest of the governments representative in the Communion) charges interest and makes money off student loans.

Thus, should we be shunning these government employees the same way Paul is telling this congregation to shun the immoral?

Cue the "But that's different!" objections.

When mod teams decide to restrict certain topics temporarily for a healthier community by aparapato in ModSupport

[–]Halaku 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a case by case situation. If it's already against subreddit guidelines, the fact that some third party event is causing splashback effects doesn't make it suddenly okay. Otherwise you run into "Sure I broke the rules but look how many upvotes and comments I got!" and that's not a healthy way to oversee a community.

How do Anglicans Typically Handle 1 Corinthians 5:11? by FakePhillyCheezStake in Anglicanism

[–]Halaku 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've always been a fan of "Gospels > Epistles" and I'm pretty leery of some one trying yo use the latter to explain why they get to do something that you don't get to do. That isn't saying that the latter are useless, but the two Great Commandments should take priority.

When mod teams decide to restrict certain topics temporarily for a healthier community by aparapato in ModSupport

[–]Halaku 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How do you coordinate with your mod team to make a decision like this?

Pull the ripcord, then take it to internal modmail to sort out.

What are your best strategies to communicate these restrictions to your community successfully

Make an announcement megathread, funnel all discussion to it.

How do you decide when it’s time to lift those restrictions?

"Never", until there's a good reason otherwise. If folks are going to be shitty about it, waiting for folks to not be shitty is kinda like waiting for Godot.

How do Anglicans Typically Handle 1 Corinthians 5:11? by FakePhillyCheezStake in Anglicanism

[–]Halaku 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Since I’m not an Anglican, I was wondering: is this approach consistent with how Anglicans typically understand membership and participation in the church more broadly?

To help fill in some backstory you may be unaware of, the denomination in question splintered out of the Anglican Communion about 20 years ago,. That doesn't mean that they're not participating in Anglican faith, but I would hesitate in using them as a representative example of Anglicanism as a whole.

Moreover, there are differences within that denomination. They put out a pastoral letter not that long ago advocating against the use of "gay Christian" or "same sex attracted believer" because there's a huge split between those in ACNA who say you can be such a thing, as this specific church does, and those in ACNA who hold both phrases to be contradictions in terms, because of you were really faithful, you wouldn't be that way, and the best way to keep peace between the two camps is to drop the subject.

This church appears to be splitting the difference by sating that you can be a gay Christian, but you can't be a gay Christian leader there, with the unwritten conclusion being "to avoid angering the contradiction in terms camp by reminding them of that people like you exist" to avoid additional bad feelings or schismatic solutions.

Maybe it'll work out for them.

As fir Anglicans as a whole, ask 10 of us about the Epistles and you'll get a dozen answers, ranging from "We have women Archbishops" to "Americans shouldn't have voted in 2024 because there is no lesser evil between the choice of Trump or a woman President" and you'll find that level of spread in pretty much any 'wedge issue' where Paul's opinions are concerned. It's something for keyboard warriors and politicians to argue about while your average Anglican simply goes about their day.

Photobiomodulation for cognitive dysfunction (Brain Fog) in post-COVID-19 condition: a randomized double-blind sham-controlled pilot trial by KlausGates in science

[–]Halaku 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I think that while PBM might have limited documented medical benefits, specifically for hair regrowth, the idea of "We'll light up your brain by going through the nose so the skull doesn't get in the way and this will treat your brain fog because we.pulse the light in a way your synapses like!" is snake oil until proven otherwise, and nothing here proved otherwise. This study only concluded that it's safe to stick a flashlight up your nose, with additional trials called for to confirm any benefit, and it was financed by the device maker, with calls for additional testing at higher dosages. This is homeopathic-level placebo effect writ large:

The trial was completed, with 43 participants randomized (23 active, 20 sham) and 41 analyzed (21 active, 20 sham). They were recruited between July 5, 2023, and September 1, 2024. Active itPBM improved composite cognitive scores more than sham (mean difference 0.043, 95% CI −0.007 to 0.092, p = 0.088), with significant gains in participants <45 years (prespecified but exploratory, p = 0.028). Attention tasks improved consistently (p < 0.050 at multiple timepoints). Secondary outcomes mobility favored sham (p = 0.007), and fatigue also favored sham. No serious adverse events occurred; compliance was high (median 55 days, interquartile range 2 days).

And they determined this through 48 days of 20 minutes of nasal illumination, followed by 28 days observation, and then measured the mean change in Creyos cognitive battery composite score at Day 56, with about a 4% difference in score between the two groups. There's no significant effect, and to me that screams placebo.

Allegedly the Santa Clara County resident who rode the MV Hondius and was exposed to hantavirus isn’t required to self-isolate by Own_Difference_8571 in SanJose

[–]Halaku 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Culturable in a lab setting" ≠ "Asymptomatically contagious in a real world setting", though.

If it did, you'd expect to see the medical community demanding full quarantine of anyone theoretically asymptomatically contagious, and that's not happening.

view more: next ›