General Discussion

11877 readers

7 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.

🪆 About Lemmy World

🧭 Finding Communities

Feel free to ask here or over in: [email protected]!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse and Feddit Lemmy Community Browser!

💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:

[email protected] - Note this is for more serious discussions.
[email protected] - The opposite of the above, for more laidback chat!
[email protected] - Into video games? Here's a place to discuss them!
[email protected] - Watched a movie and wanna talk to others about it? Here's a place to do so!

Rules

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.

0. See: Rules for Users.

No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to [email protected] or [email protected] communities.
No Ads/Spamming.
No NSFW content.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

994

Does this plan make sense? v2 (lemmy.world)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

380 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I haven't really seen it mentioned here yet but policy makers and judge rulings should either have additional schooling in the area they are making the policy/ruling on OR have a mandatory specialist/professional input throughout the process. So many of these brain dead policies come from not even know what TF they are talking about.

I want proper understanding from these people before they agree or pass something because "it sounds good" from lobbying

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

OR have a mandatory specialist/professional input throughout the process

People on the internet don't like to hear this, but that's called Lobbying.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

While this is true, I probably should have added additional context as it may be lobbying but differ in the way lobbying is currently done.

It would preferably be someone currently working in acedemia as well as holding an office (state or federally) subject to a code of ethics etc. With prerequisites within the field of question.

Now each judge or policy maker having their own expertise would be ideal, it's not really practical/feasible at this time. It's not necessarily lobbying in it's entirety that's an issue more so how it's done currently.

One could argue any person with any statement to a judge or policy maker (I'm context) classifies as lobbying since they are trying to sway the decision in their way. So by definition there's not really a way around "lobbying" but we can mitigate the (effectively) statement bribes we have screwing our system