EDIT: Sorry, I meant to edit this post yesterday when the vote was in, but 'Ban' won. I forgot the numbers from 22:00 UTC, but the current vote (by subtracting downvotes from upvotes) is 51–40, which is pretty close to what it was yesterday. So it's not a total blowout, but it does show that most people want these types of posts banned. Thus, they will be banned for at minimum two months, and a reevaluation can (not necessarily will) be initiated on 20 January. A subsequent vote will be held to determine if we want to have Throwback Tuesdays (suggested in a DM) and/or if we want to allow "Historical" leopards (older than e.g. 15 years) while disallowing "Outdated" ones (older than 3 months and younger than e.g. 15 years).

[PLEASE READ IN FULL BEFORE VOTING]

With Donald Trump's recent reascent to the US presidency, there are likely to be a bunch of stories posted here from his first term, especially as Trump is likely to have nearly unchecked power to accomplish his face-eating compared to his first term. No matter what, there will be measures taken to address this (see the 'No ban' section), but you can vote here to determine if they will be banned altogether.

This post will be locked to ensure only the 'Ban' and 'No ban' comments are present. The one with the highest score in three days (14 November, 22:00 UTC) will be the winner. A rediscussion of the decision will not be possible until 20 January 2025, the day Trump is set to assume office. Obviously this isn't strictly a Trump community and any leopard at all is welcome and encouraged for diversity, but it goes without saying that he's the most prominent leopard right now by far.

Ban

The 'Ban' comment means that articles and other stories (e.g. social media screenshots) which are a certain amount out-of-date (this will initially be three (3) months but is subject to change) will be subject to immediate removal regardless of justification. There will be no penalty for the user other than a removal. This will apply to all posts, not just Trump-related ones, but I foresee this mostly affecting Trump posts. Should a ban be enacted, a separate measure can be voted on to determine if we should have e.g. a policy where posts more recent than three months or older than 20 years are allowed, but nothing inbetween, so that historical leopards are allowed to be showcased. For right now, I don't want to unjustly split the vote.

No ban

The 'No ban' comment means that this will not happen, namely that there will be literally no cutoff. However, a minimally intrusive measure will be taken to distinguish posts covering older stories, namely that if the story is older than three months and the story does not take place in the current year, the poster will need to indicate this in the title by prepending it with the year in brackets (e.g. '[1914] I never thought the politicians would send my children off to die!').

Voting

You're welcome and heavily encouraged to upvote the comment you want and downvote the one you don't, since otherwise there's no way to guarantee someone else won't do that and cancel your vote. Both comments combined must receive at least 50 upvotes (regardless of score accounting for downvotes) for this to be binding.

Are we back a little too late? Maybe we're just on time with the US general election around the corner? Who knows! But we're back. Please check out the new sidebar. The community is no longer locked to moderators-only.

I'm pretty sure this is common knowledge among Lemmy's politically engaged userbase, but with this community having been closed for eight months, I'll try to nail down a (verbose) definition here:

• A person ("the victim") has been treated cruelly and unjustly.
• The victim directly helped in advancing e.g. a statute, politician, philosophy, or organization ("the leopard(s)") via endorsement, voting, activism, etc.
• The leopards have substantially harmed a group of people through cruel and unjust actions ("eaten their faces"), and there is a logical throughline from the leopards to the face-eating.
• The victim knew or reasonably should have known that the leopards would eat people's faces if given the power to. They helped the leopards anyway because they're indifferent to or actively enjoy this group's suffering.
• The victim is then shocked to find that the leopards have eaten their face as well ("I didn't think the leopards would eat MY face!"). Usually, any reasonable outside observer would have concluded that the victim was likely part of the group whose faces the leopards would eat.
• A common element is a lack of an apology to anyone the leopards have hurt, tacitly indicating they haven't learned any real lesson in empathy and only care that they have now personally had their face eaten.
• Another one is the (incorrect and denialist) belief by the victim that the leopards have simply eaten their face in error and need only be informed of their mistake to make it stop. (E.g. pleading on social media to a politician about their specific case).

A prototypical example:

>Adrian Personson relies on assistance they receive through Social Service. They endorse and vote for the Austerity Party – knowing one of their main promises is to slash spending by making sure Social Service doesn't go to the people who "don't deserve it". The Austerity Party wins against the Social Spending Party and ascends to power. To Adrian's shock, they receive a letter months later stating they've been cut off from Social Service. They take to social media to write an outraged post about how they're a good, honest person who doesn't deserve this.