Well but so what’s to moderate disagreements between Atheist A who believes one thing is right versus Atheist B who believes some other opposite thing is right?

there’s the indieweb movement, smaller sites trying to have fun, like neocities

lots of [removed] and [deleted] and way too many sub rules

it’s hard to know if just going to lemmy or trying to improve reddit are better strategies (or some other reddit alternative)

scarred for life, but you just focus on other things

I was going to guess racially based comments about crime in detroit idk

indeed, 'tis poison for body and mind…

mistake is relying on bing’s servers?

the problem is “intellectual property” existing at all, just get rid of it entirely and make everything public domain

also too much: [deleted] [removed]

there are some alternatives popping up like drone light shows (which can do some interesting displays fireworks can’t?) and if they got popular enough maybe people wouldn’t feel a need for fireworks as much

this is censorship and not thought to be sensible moderation by a lot of people

The widely cited “paradox of intolerance” is invoked erroneously; the tolerance of “disagreeable information” does not require that one agree with intolerant uses of force against a person. It is quite a different thing to allow someone to read someone write positively about “the virtue of stealing” (a philosophy which most people would reject), and quite another to say that one must allow a thief to steal from them.