Lafari

If a topic is in any way controversial, there's a good chance it will get removed, when I'm sure the same content wouldn't get removed on Reddit. I know it depends on subs and instances but I mean more generally, and for example AskLemmy vs AskReddit. Reddit seems to have more leeway for things, whereas Lemmy doesn't and seems harder on censorship. Not only that but they remove things even when they're not controversial such as when I just asked a question about savory fruit and sweet vegetables that got removed. They also give no reason at all for why things get removed nor any notice of its removal until you realise later. It happens so frequently that I wonder if this post will get removed too for some reason.

Please don't ask for examples thanks, the question is intended as general :)

For example (forgive my lack of details or possible inaccuracy but it's mainly to describe the concept anyway):

At one point in time in Australia, the Greens party pushed for strong climate regulation. But it was knocked down and a half-measure was proposed instead. Rather than accepting this half-measure, the Greens rejected it in favor of pursuing their original goals which they determined to be too crucial to abandon. As a result, there was no change implemented at all and it arguably impeded progress.

The Greens were accused of "letting the perfect become the enemy of the good". But as Greta Thunberg said, "'The good' in climate terms is not safe and is closer to black comedy than reality."

Whether or not they made the right decision with the gamble at the time since they didn't have the benefit of retrospect that it wouldn't work out the way they hoped, could it be that in a dire situation, there is an argument for risking causing an even worse outcome in order to attempt to pursue a better outcome which is seen as absolutely required, rather than accepting a positive yet insufficient outcome? Would that necessarily be a fallacy or possibly just somewhat recklessly ambitious in a way that might be subject to interpretation on whether it was wise or not depending on the circumstances and the importance of meeting a goal?

Also, the phrase "letting the perfect become the enemy of the good" is often associated with the Nirvana fallacy or the perfect solution fallacy.

"The Nirvana Fallacy occurs when someone dismisses a realistic solution to a problem because it is not perfect, and they argue that a perfect solution is the only acceptable option. In essence, it's the rejection of a good or adequate solution because it doesn't meet an ideal standard.

The Perfect Solution Fallacy arises when someone rejects possible solutions because they believe these solutions are not perfect or do not solve the entire problem. It involves demanding that a proposed solution must be flawless and comprehensive, or it is deemed unacceptable.

The Nirvana Fallacy is about rejecting realistic solutions because they fall short of an ideal, while the Perfect Solution Fallacy is more about demanding an ideal solution and dismissing anything less."

I struggle to understand the difference between the 2 closely related fallacies, but my understanding is perhaps the Nirvana fallacy involves: "This solution is imperfect, and the perfect solution would be unrealistic, therefore we shouldn't try to improve anything at all." (ignoring that any improvement is better than nothing) whereas the perfect solution fallacy is more like: "This solution is imperfect, therefore we should reject it and only strive for a perfect/adequate or better solution." (ignoring that the perfect solution may be unrealistic and an imperfect solution may be a valid compromise to fall back on.) The Nirvana fallacy seems overly pessimistic/defeatist whereas the perfect solution fallacy seems overly optimistic in an unreasonable way of not accepting a valid albeit imperfect solution even when there's no reason not to i.e. it wouldn't prevent the perfect solution from still being pursued.

What the Greens did in this scenario seems more like the latter, however I feel like there's a slight difference, since they didn't just reject the imperfect solution (and take an all-or-nothing approach to pursue a perfect solution) purely because it wasn't perfect, but because there was reason to believe that only one solution could be pursued and either one would make the other impossible to achieve; in other words if the lesser solution was accepted it may prevent the chance of achieving the greater solution, and vice versa, so they rejected the insufficient solution only as a means to attempt to attain the "sufficient" solution which they viewed as absolutely necessary or non-negotiable.

So does it fall under one of these fallacies, or a different fallacy, or is it not a fallacy?

Is there a word that means "a hatred of gay people", rather than "a fear of or aversion to gay people"? Surely there are people who simply hate homosexuality without necessarily fearing it, and vice versa. Someone who hates homosexuality should probably be condemned for their unreasonable and hateful prejudices, but should someone who actually fears homosexuality but without hating it be condemned in the same way? Why isn't there a distinction?

And similarly, why do we have words like "arachnophobia" which means a fear of something (not necessarily a hatred of it; though you might hate what you fear, that isn't necessarily always the case, nor is the opposite always true either (fearing what you hate)), but "homophobia" is used to mean "hatred of homosexuality" rather than a genuine fear of it without necessarily hating it?

It makes me feel a bit sorry (as much as one can) for people who might genuinely be afraid of the idea of homosexuality, maybe even struggling with their own sexuality or possibly in denial of being homosexual themself, but without hating it at all (even possibly being supportive of it), not having a word that conveys a fear of the concept/phenomenon without any kind of disdain for it, since "homophobia" would generally be interpreted to mean something far more negative. Usually when someone has a phobia for something, we support them to deal with it in a non-accusatory way, but in this case, well, I guess there isn't even a word for that kind of phobia if it's actually a phobia in the usual sense.

Is there a word that means "a hatred of gay people", rather than "a fear of or aversion to gay people"?

And similarly, why do we have words like "arachnophobia" which means a fear of something (not necessarily a hatred of it; though you might hate what you fear, that isn't necessarily always the case, nor is the opposite always true either (fearing what you hate)), but "homophobia" is used to mean "hatred of homosexuality" rather than a genuine fear of it without necessarily hating it?

It makes me feel a bit sorry (as much as one can) for people who might genuinely be afraid of the idea of homosexuality, maybe even struggling with their own sexuality or possibly in denial of being homosexual themself, but without hating it at all (and being supportive of it), not having a word that conveys a fear of the concept/phenomenon without any kind of disdain for it, since "homophobia" would generally be interpreted to mean something far more negative. Usually when someone has a phobia for something, we support them to deal with it in a non-accusatory way, but in this case, well, I guess there isn't even a word for that kind of phobia if it's actually a phobia in the usual sense.

Keep in mind they're sophists so it has to be a well-structured logical argument. I don't know why I keep arguing with these kinds of people. Disclaimer: I'm pro-LGBT.

Unhinged conspiracy theorist Francis E. Dec, who essentially originated the concept of gangstalking and targeted individuals and gained notoriety for ranting about his theories of the "Gangster Computer God", passed away 15 days after his 70th birthday. But how did he die?

"Age 70 - According to Dec, the critical age at which the Computer God has determined that all people should either be "dead or useless".  Presumably this policy would only apply to the plebian masses and not to the Playboy scum-on-top. Should you be "lucky" enough to live to age 70 and be rendered useless, you can also expect to have many diseases, a raspy, aged voice and a wrinkled ugly gargoylic clown-booze face with bulldog hanging cheeks and jowls."

Did he kill himself after he turned 70 or was it just a coincidence?

Don't want to endorse Christianity necessarily but hard to get around saying the word Christmas or Xmas, so is Xmas more rebellious? Is there an even more rebellious or irreverent name for it?

Also, should I not even celebrate Christmas? What's an alternative that features the presents-giving at the same time of year but in a way that isn't tied in any way to religion (and ideally doesn't involve killing turkeys)?

Question inspired by the image (see attached)