this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2026
509 points (96.4% liked)
196
6801 readers
2500 users here now
Community Rules
You must post before you leave
Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).
Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.
Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.
Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".
Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.
Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.
Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.
Avoid AI generated content.
Avoid misinformation.
Avoid incomprehensible posts.
No threats or personal attacks.
No spam.
Moderator Guidelines
Moderator Guidelines
- Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
- Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
- When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
- Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
- Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
- Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
- Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
- Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
- Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
- Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
- Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
- Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
- First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
- Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
- No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
- Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
- Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
it's 100% legal as long as both of them die.
Are you from. Texas? If so then you're in luck.
Yes and how do we verify that the dead person consented?
I shit you not this precisely is why dueling is illegal.
Generally via public challenges and consent delivered to 3rd party witnesses (seconds) that could verify that the duel took place in an agreed upon manner. It was, in certain times and places, very legal and ritualized.
The real reason is that it doesn't actually settle disputes. It mostly serves as a nuclear option to elevate arguments, attack someone else's character, or simply a legal loophole for violent sociopaths. See: this crazy example.
Yup, can't kill an idea nor does it resolve the argument.
People, people, please! What's with all this violence? I have a different proposal. How about every year, for one day only...
(you know where this is going)
I can see the allure because it implies that every conflict could become life-threatening, therefore everybody should weigh their words carefully.
In reality though it would emphasize the weight of trained duellists higher than those with well-informed convictions. If you cannot speak the truth because well-paid professional duellists could suppress you anytime by threat of duel (or shame of declining it).
There is a good reason why pretty much every modern civilization stopped this practise: Too much was needlessly lost (see Hamilton, Fermat, many students in the 18th century Europe...).
It could just be me, but I see no shame at all in declining a duel. Or are we going to go back to when the challenged get to choose the weapon and location? Naked, with whips, to the death would likely make most people trained with a firearm question it. I'm not sure how popular whips are, but I wouldnt consider myself completely inept with them and could probably tag their twig and berries pretty early on in the fight.
Refusing to participate in a ritual that is commonly practiced will always make society recoil. As the system gets normalized and the idea of dueling loses its absurdity, refusing to participate in them after commiting to an idea would inevitably send the message that you don't truly believe in your words, at least not enough to "bet everything on it". And not having enough resources/experience to stand your ground would literally cost you your life.
Besides, we already have dueling in the court of law.
-I believe your organization has wronged me, I demand retribution
-I disagree and to double down by inviting you to sue me
Now do you put your capital and livelyhood at risk to stand your ground or back off?
- You can not represent yourself (You don't have experience)
- Your opponent has a whole legal team and doesn't have to sacrifice production to fight you (You lack the resources to fight back)
There's got to be some weapon that's impossible to aim, takes no skill, and kills instantly. Something to make it a 50/50 chance with no lingering injury for the winner.
and that's why we can't have nice things
and that's what you missed on hamilton
Yeah I'm really loving the central bank right now
Breaking News: Amazon employee and workers rights activist challenged Killgore Union-Strangler to a fight to the death and lost.
As proof they signed a contract with an official notary present, Mr. Fraudsalot McBribe.
TIL POTUS is also a notary.
Mr McBribe is his father, he prefers to go by Grifter.
Not every duel was to the death. Bring back sword duels to first blood.
Honestly, just giving everyone one free face punch per year would be a good start.
load more comments
(13 replies)
I feel like we need to bring dueling back.
I think though, just as a fair fight, the loser gets to live. Fisticuffs. Or idk. But maybe like lethal, sometimes. How fucking sweet would it be to challenge ben shapiro to a sword fight? I would go with fighting irons, but that's just how I am.
Polish sabers.... I want to cut him to ribbons
This totally did sort of used to happen but only for rich people. Juries would often acquit the wealthy for dueling because when they did it, it was seen as honoring a tradition.
No money or land though? Then you just were brawling.
in my mind this falls under bodily autonomy. people have the right to consent to anything being done to their body or not, but also that consent can be given or rescinded at any time. its unethical to legislate away our ability to consent to be shot or stabbed or bludgeoned or killed or whatever, and the person carrying that out shouldnt be punished at all for participating in consensual acts.
i think society in general just gets the ick from the idea of people consenting to things being done to their body that they personally dont understand or would never want and tries to stop it to satisfy their own feelings. we see this applied to all kinds of things like abortion, body modification, drug use, suicide, gender transition, sex acts, sexual partners, etc. its pretty patronizing and only causes additional harm to people seeking those things out without really doing anything to meaningfully stop them.
hopefully at some point in the future human culture will be able to internalize bodily autonomy as an inherent personal right. we're on the road but we've been hitting a few bumps lately...
Like is it weird? Sure. Would I do it? No. Do I like it? Also no. But none of these are good enough reasons not to allow two consenting adults to undergo surgical procedures to conjoin their bodies into a single, deadly chimera
i think the issue with consent is that when power imbalences are involved, it becomes very hard to tell if it is actually present.
like someone whose needs are not met can be pressured into giving consent for things they do not actually consent to, in exchange for what they need most.
we really need to make sure that everyone is provided for and social power imbalences aren't too big, to make consent actually work.
load more comments
(8 replies)
I think it is necessary to have some limitations to avoid people being pressured or coerced into 'consenting' to things they really shouldn't. Because otherwise you're going to get scenarios where it's rather dubious to imagine someone really sincerely consented to getting killed.
Consider something like Squid Game. Every participant joined the games voluntarily, at least on paper. They're even given the opportunity to leave, only for many of them to come back because their lives in poverty are that bad, and they have families who need the money, need it so badly that they'll take such an extreme risk. So is that consent? Should that be a legal form of dueling? Or is the entire message of the show that it very much shouldn't be?
load more comments
(2 replies)
We also don't do this, because it will lead to people agreeing to be killed for money. Also you'd need everybody involved to undergo a mental evaluation. We wouldn't want manipulable people bring killed for sport. Because let's not kid ourselves, that would absolutely happen. And so we just don't allow it at all.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(21 replies)
I think it’s an Oregon.. not sure. But there’s a state that lets Consenting adults participate in a fist fight as long as a police officer referees it
hockey is legal so shrugs
As is Australian Rules Football.
ITT: Witness the decline of American civilization and the return to barbarism under the guise of freedom to do shit.
Let me make a counter argument with just two words: Peer pressure.
load more comments
(11 replies)
Lotta shining intellects in here debating a fucking meme
view more: next ›