-7
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2026
-7 points (36.0% liked)
Unpopular Opinion
9542 readers
304 users here now
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
6. Defend your opinion
This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
2 is an issue. I interpret that in two ways and both are problematic.
A) You as an individual are allowed to ignore a law that conflicts with your own sense of justice. Historically, there was a period in the US where a black man touching a white woman, literally making physical contact, was seen as a capital offense. Those involved in the linching ignored the law to follow their own sense of justice. This would be just as permissable as noble crimes like stealing food to avoid starving or rebelling against a corrupt government.
B) The law cannot penalize a crime committed by someone who believes the actions they commited upholds their sense of justice. Ignoring the fact that one could just lie and say that it was justice that compelling them to do something, we again have to account for conflicting views of justice. That guy that burned down the wearhouse believed wholly that it was justice for the mistreatment levied by the company, but the executives of that company likely feel justified in paying them so poorly because that could just get a different job.
It would likely be better to incode a sense of justice that can't be argued against tusk allow the individual to make their own.
If someone violates your freedom while claiming to act justly, they have forfeited their own freedom in your eyes. That is common sense. They should also rectify the harm they caused.