He’s free to discuss this article any way that he thinks is interesting. Just because he found it helpful to point out the bias in this case doesn’t obligate him to do it in any other cases. He doesn’t owe you anything.
Also, responding to someone noting the reputation of your source with what amounts to "ARE YOU ACCUSING ME OF BREAKING THE RULES? ARE YOU SAYING CONSERVATIVE LEANING SOURCES ARE ILLEGAL?” is basically the textbook definition of a wildly defensive response lmao.
Yes, but orders of magnitude less often than random members of the public “doing their own research”. And looking at the consensus of the experts rather than individual experts the error rate is further orders of magnitude below that. You need to let go of the idea that information being a good basis for decisions means that it’s “absolute truth”, because only religion has that; what we have is some sources of information that are less likely to be wrong than all the others, and that’s unfortunately the best you can get.
They didn’t say you couldn’t appeal a civil case. They said that ineffective counsel can’t be the basis of that appeal.
The default wallpaper looks so much like testicles photographed from below and I can’t unsee it
Haha yeah, good point. I guess I should have specified it would be a good post on this community specifically where people look to find handy tips for using Lemmy effectively. The fact that one of the huge instances where a lot of your search results come from when you’re starting out looking for content has such an aggressive pro-totalitarian moderation strategy is an unexpected, but very useful insight.
Holy crap. This should be it’s own post. Just purged all the “serious” communities I was following on there.
This is definitely a gap on the main community pages, but in the interim, if you click into an actual post it shows the fully qualified community name at the top. At least that’s what I’m seeing.
Go for it