Yeah, I guess I should. I just can’t quite understand how anyone could fail to realize how absurd it is for a movie theater to use its most prominent advertising space not for promoting its movie lineup, but for food offerings.

To me, this strongly suggests that this movie theater—which is part of a large chain—now sees its main product as food rather than movies.

I have absolutely no sympathy for that, and I can only applaud it when a company like that loses customers because of its own idiocy.

My local movie theater in the heart of downtown has taken down all the movie posters outside the entrance and replaced them with a single screen that only shows ads for overpriced popcorn “deals”.

Before, anyone walking by knew which movies were currently playing; now, all they know is just how outrageously expensive the popcorn is.

I haven’t been to that theater since.

That reads exactly like this absurd video message from a power trippin reddit mod after he was removed for promoting a scam.

It’s just as completely out of touch with reality that you almost have to feel sorry for guys like that, because it’s obviously pathological.

On the other hand, though, people like that are a threat to others—in this case an immediate threat for freedom of expression and open discourse, the cornerstones of the Fediverse.

You’re right—thanks for pointing that out.

Because of their shady tactics, I had naturally assumed that Axel Springer must be involved, but in fact, Springer Verlag was founded by Julius Springer, who apparently has nothing to do with Axel Springer.

Edit: I’m removing the part about Springer Verlag from my comment so that other people don’t get confused.

No wonder. Axel Springer is an utterly malicious corporation.

It’s only fitting that they take a liking to Thiel, who is, after all, also an unscrupulous monster.

Edit: Removed a statement about Springer Verlag; thanks to schnurrito for pointing out that this company is not affiliated with Axel Springer.

Toto - Africa (metal cover by Leo Moracchioli feat. Rabea & Hannah)

This cover should meet just about all of your criteria, but it’s already a few years old.

I think the best approach is to find reviewers whose tastes largely align with your own. Their reviews can serve as a good reference when you’re looking for a movie you haven’t seen yet.

There are simply too many criteria you could apply. The “Cinesiasts”, for example—who like films like Citizen Kane or works by Ingmar Bergman, Aki Kaurismäki, and the like—naturally know a great deal about their field. However, that by no means means their reviews would be a good reference point for the general public, who simply want to be entertained and don’t place too much value on artistic merit or the most elaborate technical skills of filmmakers.

True enough … well… I’d say that hardly makes it any less homoerotic, tho … which is, of course, totally fine… just a little hypocritical if you’re a follower of a homophobic ideology …

Hmm, where does this fascination come from—the fascination fascists have with watching sweaty, half-naked, hairy men wrestle with each other?

I wonder if it might have something to do with repressed feelings?

That is simply wrong. Public pressure can certainly be effective. In any case, it’s definitely better than doing nothing at all.

deleted by creator

I’m curious to see if our esteemed Federal Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has anything to say about this. Well, actually not, because he’s more of a U.S. lobbyist than a representative of the people, and so he certainly won’t level any criticism at his employers.

That makes it pretty clear that most executives are the worst possible people to run a company. Well, that’s just how it is when ruthlessness and greed are the only criteria used to select top executives.

But hey, even if they were to lose their jobs because they’re burning through so much money, things will go on as usual: Anyone who’s ever held a top management position will always be hired for the same role somewhere else, because competence is definitely not the deciding factor here. Never was, never will be.

Your skepticism is understandable and justified, but unfortunately it is precisely this skepticism that Israel knows how to exploit.

Not only does this criminal state invest billions in influencing public opinion—specifically targeting legacy media outlets believed to be reputable—but it also systematically kills journalists who attempt to provide independent reporting not controlled by Israel.

They are evidently pursuing a strategy so unscrupulous that it is absolutely unprecedented in recent human history. For obvious reasons, there are few reliable sources on this, but these older, scientifically collected data should give an impression of the sheer scale of the problem.

I’ll just copy a comment here that I posted more than a year ago—not the slightest thing has changed in the meantime; quite the contrary, since the U.S. continues to shield the criminal regime of Israel and thereby actively supports the genocide of the Palestinians:

Israel deliberately kills journalists, as evidenced by the fact that more journalists have been killed in Gaza in the last two years “than in the U.S. Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War (including the conflicts in Cambodia and Laos), the wars in Yugoslavia in the 1990s and 2000s, and the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan, combined”.

Source: Watson Institute for International & Public Affairs - News Graveyards: How Dangers to War Reporters Endanger the World (full paper here)

Edit: Fixed the link to the full paper as the url changed since my original comment.

Wow, the billionaires seem completely convinced that U.S. citizens will go along with anything… well, hmmm… who’s going to argue with them… it’s true, after all, that they do…

Yep, sorry. But hey, this thread definitely has its fair share of mudslinging. Hope you’re getting your money’s worth.

Hmm, well, the moderation workload does need to remain reasonably manageable for you guys.

I can’t really judge that, of course, but perhaps you could identify specific topics from the modlog that have repeatedly caused problems in the past. For example, posts about political parties (such as the two U.S. parties or the far-right AfD in Germany, etc.), political movements like MAGA, politicians like Trump and his allies, wars (such as the current U.S.-Iran conflict), or technologies like LLMs.

You could also try surveying the community itself to identify such “controversial topics,” perhaps in a pinned post, where you could set a minimum number of upvotes per suggestion for a suggestion to be included.

I think this would yield a number of concrete examples that illustrate what is meant by “no politics.” The more examples there are, the clearer it would probably be.

Thank you very much for the background information. And also for the time you spend moderating—that is truly commendable and is indeed very much needed.

Perhaps I should have reached out to you directly, but I was so outraged that I didn’t, especially since this wasn’t the first post of mine you’d removed for the same reason.

Well, looking at all the downvotes here, it seems your approach to “showerthoughts” is being liked and even vigorously defended by many.

As I said, I see it differently and consider it very dangerous to define community rules so broadly that they simply leave the decision of what’s allowed and what isn’t exclusively up to the moderators. In your case, this seems to be done with caution and reasonable consideration. Nevertheless, I believe that rules must be clearly defined and transparent from the outset so that it’s clear what to expect. Likewise, to ensure that decisions are not made purely on a whim.

As I said, I consider the “no politics” rule unsuitable for this, since there’s simply no such thing as a topic that might not be political to someone.

But since many here seem to see it quite differently, I’m probably wrong. Still, I simply can’t accept that it’s a lottery whether my posts will be allowed or not in a general community that doesn’t have a fixed topic.

Therefore, I have to accept the rules and just post elsewhere, where there is no such rule. I think that’s better for everyone, since my posts at your community only seem to lead to conflicts, which is certainly not my intention at all.

If you’d like, I’ll delete this post here right away, but it seems to me that it might be a good way to gather some more opinions on the rule in question.

Please let me know if you see it differently—in that case, I’ll delete this post here immediately.

Well, I simply didn’t have the motivation anymore, so I didn’t take the time to look for a community where this post might not have been removed.

However, since I’ve often found myself starting to read a post and leaving a comment on it, only to discover that the post had been removed because of this arbitrary “no politics” rule, I thought I’d use this admittedly salty post to point out what kinds of posts are currently being removed in one of the largest Lemmy communities.

I think it’s important for people to be aware that a community whose name suggests it’s a place to share your thoughts with others is, in fact, a community where a kind of “thought police” decides—based on their own sensitivities—what people get to see and what they don’t. That’s exactly what this “no politics” rule amounts to, because any topic can be interpreted as political if you don’t have a clear definition of what “political” actually means.

I don’t understand how so many people can think it’s a good idea to give moderators a rule that allows them to remove posts at will. It’s like banning posts about mathematics in a physics community—it’s simply absurd.

Thanks for the heads-up! I guess that’s what I’ll do. It’s a shame that the largest communities, of all places, are censoring themselves like this.