When having to admit their fault the moderator started looking for arbitrary reasons to ban me. Such as not using the exact terminology of the Amnesty report. Which does not call it genocide.


The moderator is also watching user votes, and calling out people not voting with him.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 34 points 1 year ago (114 children)

Seeing how Goat tried to ping db0 because they voted in the thread to drag them into debate, I'm gonna go with PTB on this one.

If they wanted to prove their point, they should have given links that proved their point.

  • source
  • hideshow 114 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (104 children)

    Never mind that anarchists are explicitly anti-authoritarian, apparently db0 is a tankie now? Lol, yep checks out. Those twatwaffles think a "tankie" is anyone who is critical of the Dems, or of US foreign policy. OPs comments were also accurate imo regarding China's influence in Myanmar being a much stronger example of Chinese imperialism.

    The libs have got some nerve getting hysterical about the Uyghurs when they obviously couldn't give two shits about their own government (and their own party) continually voting to keep supplying weapons to Israel in order to continue its genocide in Gaza. Has China been shitty and authoritarian towards the Uyghurs? Yes, no doubt. Is it a genocide of the type and scale that Israel is currently waging? Absolutely not.

    PTB

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 104 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (28 children)

    For "violating the disengage rule" so no, not for "no reason".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (25 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (23 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (21 children)

    You "had the same disengage rule"? What does that even mean? I didn't see you using disengage anywhere, and the disengage rule doesn't protect you from being talked about, only from being talked to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    I did. Nothing relevant to the disengage rule.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    Your disengage rule is not our disengage rule? Our disengage rule is not preventing us talking about you or your comm in our own instance?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    Again, we don't use your rule. Our rule doesn't prevent us from talking about your moderation practices. Therefore no hypocrisy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (13 children)

    My community. Disengagement rule.

    Sure, but our comm is not your comm? Your comm rules do not apply to our comm?

    Why do you think your rules should apply to areas you don't control? Even in our own disengage rule, we say we can't control what happens in other instances.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    It seems another mod banned you so you can't respond anymore, but I will say that this community is all about criticising comms and their rules as well. Just because you banned someone "according to rules" doesn't mean it's an action above criticism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Goat's community, allegedly, has the same rule. I am taking this at face value.

    There's your problem. It does not have the same rule. I said that multiple times in this thread.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Our disengage rule doesn't go against YPTB posting. So either we don't have the same rule, so goat can't complain that we're hypocrites. Or we do have the same rule, in which case we're not violating it. And honestly, I think you're trying way too hard to keep arguing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Which, it would be, assuming everything else Goat alleged in that thread is true.

    It. is. not. hypocrisy! We are perfectly within the context of this community to criticize both the rules and the applications of those rules!

    If, say, flatworm had banned me from this community and then I came back later and accused flatworm of being a power tripping bastard for banning me over the disengage rule.

    Yes, you can do that. People would tell YDI, but that's about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    If the rule was the same, and the bans goat was criticised were due to an identical disengage rule application as we have here, then it would not be hypocritical to open a thread in YPTB, but it would be hypocritical for people who uphold the disengage rule here to criticise goat for using it. But nobody did that.

    This is just a discussion without a purpose. You don't even know if it's the same rule, you're just making hypotheticals and it's honestly a waste of both our times.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 13 points 1 year ago (43 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 12 points 1 year ago (41 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 8 points 1 year ago (39 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 9 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 9 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (27 children)

    They said China's foreign policy and meddling toward Myanmar was a better example of Chinese imperialism than your example. Maybe you are confused about what imperialism is?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (25 children)

    Wtf is this, a tankie purity test? With respect to Myanmar, yes. But in general, much less so than any other superpower. They have used economic imperialism quite a bit, as have all economic superpowers, but that's quite different compared to literally colonizing countries like nearly every Western state has done. They have also supported Russia's imperialist invasion of Ukraine, So my qualified answer is yes to some degree, but I definitely wouldn't say imperialism is one of their defining characteristics, particularly when you look at the scale of their imperialist characteristics compared to basically any western state. What they are though is highly authoritarian towards their own people, and as an anarchist that's what I find most problematic about the Chinese state.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (23 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    Would’ve figured the death of innocents is always bad regardless of who they are.

    It is always bad, nobody is arguing otherwise.

    But let’s shelf that for now and focus on the brigading and how this community seems to have lost it’s purpose, which is discussing whether or not a ban was justified, not about the views of the moderator.

    What's your definition of brigading? Is it when nobody agrees with you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    So brigading is when our community members vote on posts?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

    That's called the Streisand effect, look it up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I don't accept your premise. If you have any evidence of "manipulation" or sock puppet accounts then please provide it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Why are you making wild claims just because a few users went to your thread (you know, the thread that was reported here that OBVIOUSLY people would have gone and looked at and engaged with) and downvoted your sorry ass? That's not brigading, it's just normal user behaviour.

    None of your arguments here have been in good faith. You've just strutted around peppering our users with a bunch of accusatory questions as though you're some sort of lameass Joe McCarthy impersonator. Did you learn that on voat.com? You don't even seem to have the vaguest clue what anarchism means as a political ideology, or how completely ridiculous it is to be calling us tankies. Looks to me like you're just stirring up shit with our instance and on that basis I'm not going to bother engage with you any further.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    I always said it was only a matter of time before the social fascists that call MWoG their home would turn on even dbzer0. It's the classic Nazi bar, they outright fabricate info, erase context, welcome Zionists and other fascists, it was only a matter of time before they got even greedier and started attacking anarchists for being "tankies."

    It's not a coincidence that they call us "roaches" or "degenerates," it's because it's a cryptofash meeting spot.

    Edit: lmao, seems I pissed off the social fascist. I couldn't even engage if I wanted to interact with your Nazi bar, because PJ bans me from every comm they mod because they lost an argument in a comm they don't mod. Go fuck yourself, fascist. Keep spreading hasbara, keep tending your garden of Zionists. Palestine will be free, and there's nothing you can do to stop that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    Stop shitstirring. This post is about your shitty behavior, not my mod actions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The shitty behavior was pinging an instance admin in an unrelated thread to accuse them of being a tankie for downvoting a comment. And what's also shitty imo is claiming that folks who think the whole Uyghur genocide in China is massively overblown by the West are all tankies. It's entirely possible to believe China is a hugely authoritarian State and also that the Uyghur "genocide" claims are mostly overblown and misrepresented by the West. I'm no China fan, but they certainly aren't bombing the shit out of the Uyghurs or peppering civilians with grenades dropped from drones, like US-backed Israel is. You guys love the lesser evil argument, so to put it in a way you will understand: many folks think China is the lesser evil compared to the US, and that doesn't make those folks tankies. It just means they recognise that the list of shitty things the US has done in the past 50 years far, far outweighs the list of shitty things that China has done in the same period.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    When it comes to atrocity, there’s no ‘lesser evil’ or justification or differentiation for it. There’s no excuse at all; that’s why they’re atrocities. I don’t care who they come from, if they hurt people, I don’t like them.

    Exactly. So why rage at anarchists when fighting authoritarian states is literally our whole thing? It's just because we are also highly critical of the US and the Dems in particular, because they are always banging on about being the "lesser evil" like its some sort of gotcha. To be clear, if I haven't been already, I 100% condemn China's actions towards the Uyghurs. Is it technically a genocide? Depends what definition you're working with, but to my mind it meets the definition. Meanwhile the Dems have consistently voting with Trump to keep arming Israel, and there is no sign of them changing their position. So what irks me and others is the double standard. Most Democrat representatives have repeatedly denied Gaza is a genocide, and continue to do so, but I don't see you banning people who attempt to downplay the role of the US in that genocide as being tankies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don’t care about the US. It’s an evil country and a third-world one at that. The world would be a better place if the government were to collapse.

    Well, we agree on that at least.

    If you read my comment, you’d know the reason why I pinged, which was to lead up to my complaint about this community. That this community isn’t actually about moderator misconduct but instead a way to attack others based on their views, or in my case, just making shit up about my views despite me clarifying what they are.

    Anyone can read the previous posts in this community and form their own opinion on that. As a community mod I'm not the arbiter of truth in this community. I have my own opinions and I share them, along with everyone else. I don't apologise for that. But I'd say in 9/10 cases the community sentiment towards posters is very much aligned with my own. You just seem to be aggrieved that the community has deemed you to be the PTB in this case. It's clear to me (and obviously to others judging by the comments) that you hate leftists a lot more than the right wingers who frequent your community, who you seem to get along with just fine. And that fact you claim anarchists are tankies tells me all I need to know about your political literacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (17 replies)
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    On top of everything else, using mod/admin privileges to reveal users’ votes is just bad form.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The main reason reddit is shit is because it's so easy to manipulate votes. I'm happy most lemmy instances have public voting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Reddit is easy to sockpuppet because it’s a corporation with one primary goal: MUA go up. Ad sales and user data sales. If the vote manipulation and shill posts/comments don’t hurt user engagement metrics then they don’t care.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    User votes are public on Lemmy.

    The only reason they’re “public” is an artifact of ActivityPub’s architecture that can’t be designed around, because if it could be, it would be. Users who continue to expose votes after being warned may get banned (which thankfully is extremely rare so far). Instances like lemvotes.org get defederated.

    One should be held accountable for their votes

    They are held accountable, by the mods & admins. Vote spam/manipulation accounts get banned.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Users who continue to expose votes after being warned may get banned

    Depends on the instance I think.

    They are held accountable, by the mods & admins.

    So correct me if I'm wrong but regular mods can't see it and only admins.

    So this is just an anecdotal impression but when lemvotes came online, a few mods and users got called out for their zionist voting. After that, the amount of pro Israel propaganda being upvoted, posted and commented went down by quite a bit.

    It's too much to ask of admins imo, going through downvotes. More importantly, I'd rather the bad actors have potentially any one of us to fear instead of a just a handful of already too busy admins.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Depends on the instance I think.

    Of course. I can only speak to lemmy.ml. Other instance admins are welcome to add their 2¢.

    So correct me if I’m wrong but regular mods can’t see it and only admins.

    Until recently that was true, but I think mods can now see the votes in their communities.

    It’s too much to ask of admins imo, going through downvotes.

    Could be. I think at least one instance has built tooling/automation around it. The thing is, dealing with users getting into arguments/fights/vendettas over votes may also be a lot to ask of admins.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)