74
Banned from MeanwhileOnGrad after the moderator conceded there was no basis for his Uyghur genocide post (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
313 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] -3 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

I came back to this thread days later just out of boredom to see what else happened.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? It seems pretty straightforward and you're kinda just dismissing the very simple and obvious hypocrisy allegations with a weird strawman? Let me replay what is being discussed bcos I can't tell if you're being dumb on purpose or just misread something.

This is a community about (perceived) community mismanagement, based on common/majority opinion.

This community has a rule about disengagement. Seems like a fine rule to help keep things from escalating.

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

If this rule is enforced in Goat's community, and then criticized in this community, then it is clearly, objectively, and I don't know how else I can stress this ANY further, inarguably hypocritical to have a rule that operates on the same basis.

Again, I'm just taking what is being said by Goat at face value bcos you failed to actually refute anything they said and made a dumb argument about not needing to enforce Goat's rules in other communities (which is clearly not what Goat was saying at all, hence why it's so confusing that you got stuck on this strawman).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    No? You didn't? You said you couldn't personally locate it, that's the closest thing (in this thread) to what you claim to have said (in this thread).

    You seem to be struggling bcos Goat is clearly either confused themself or a bad faith actor, and what they are saying/evidence they are providing is confusing you because it is nonsensical. The claim Goat made was that they used a disengage rule in their own community and then the evidence they provided of this was the "snark thread" about them which seems entirely irrelevant to the claim. But at no point did you argue against their claim, you argued against their evidence, which should have been dismissed in the first place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Also, I want to clarify that if you are trying to accuse me of being some bad faith actor aligned with Goat and/or PugJesus, know that I am probably much closer to your instance's general opinion on the Palestinian genocide than I am to theirs, but also much closer in opinion to them about the Ughyur genocide than I am to your instance's general opinion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I just think it's annoying when people can't properly grasp what the other side is saying, and you still don't seem to grasp what is being communicated to you.

    Goat is clearly trying to say "I have a disengage rule in my community. I used this rule against a user, and then enforced it by banning them. They called me a power tripping bastard for enforcing a rule that the power tripping bastard community has. This is hypocrisy"

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

    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.

    And trying way too hard to keep arguing? What are you, the argument police? Yeah, I like arguing on the internet. It's a good way to let off steam. But I also like correcting people, being pedantic, etc.

    I'm not even arguing with you so much as trying to get to the bottom of why you're misinterpreting the argument Goat posed, and then contradicting you when you say something that isn't true. I don't think of pointing out objectively incorrect recollections as being arguing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    How about this lmao

    If they're the same exact rule being applied fairly in both instances, then it would be hypocrisy to criticize something that happens in one community which is routine in the community criticizing. Is this fair?

    I'm not saying that is true of this situation. I am saying that is the argument being made that you aren't refuting very effectively from my perspective. Lmao.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •