96
!fediverse@piefed.social </c/fediverse@piefed.social> mod throws insults then blocks replies. (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
locked 296 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Rimu published yet another hit piece against the /0 instance and this time posted it in his own instance comms as well. One of his mods jumped in, admitted they don't know anything about anything, but nevertheless felt confident enough to state their opinion as fact and in the process insult all of us collectively, then stickied his opinion for good measure.

So I decided to reply sarcastically, at which point that mod insulted me and locked the thread, which is apparently a feature in piefed which simply hides/deletes further replies in that thread, but since it's not a feature in lemmy, it appears to function like a shadow delete.

This is what my last reply would have been.

(Yes I'm being snarky, but that "I'm so mature" bullshit just rubs me the wrong way.)

In my opinion, using mod powers to get the last insult in, is just bastard behaviour.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 6 months ago* (7 children)

I didn't say in MoG, I said in anti-MoG spaces.

vague; are you attempting to make an allusion to hexbear.net/c/slop? like yeah there's gonna be people who are not favorable to anticommunism, plus the comm is for all forms of reactionary bullshit, lemmy bullshit just happens to show up there occasionally. MoG isn't even on the front page there right now, nor is it anywhere in top.

supporting a genocide with billions in weapons and diplomatic cover is material, direct support. that's precise. that's the complaint that i've seen making about people who uncritically support political parties which have been doing this. 'sweeping for' is vague accusation with no clear criterion, bordering on wrongthink.

'authoritarian communists' is also imprecise. authoritarian by whose definition? the US is authoritarian, we have the highest incarceration rate on earth. if you can't pay rent or otherwise secure housing you essentially end up unpersoned. if you're just somebody living in a country that's opposed to the US you will be subjected to misery via economic warfare under the guise of peaceful status quo (sanctions). 'tankie' isn't used for US supporters, no matter how authoritarian it is, it's used for anyone opposing US imperialism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 6 months ago* (6 children)

    vague; are you attempting to make a vague allusion to hexbear.net/c/slop?

    Yup, places like that.

    So on the one hand, Liberals == actual Nazis, simple as. No nuance needed. But on the other hand, not all communists support authoritarian communism, and what does that actually even mean, etc.

    If that's your honest take, then we're just fundamentally not going to agree.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    on the other hand, not all communists support authoritarian communism, and what does that actually even mean, etc.

    you started this claiming piefed's intended exclusion of 'tankies' wasn't anti-communist. my point is simply that what matters if a given communist is to get called 'tankie' or not is how willing they are to toe the line against americas enemies.

    the US is authoritarian, it has been the hegemon and projects that domination around the world, choosing to have more ire for it than its enemies gets you labeled 'tankie'. i can only conclude that the desire to exclude tankies stems from a desire to censor critics of us imperialism.

    Liberals == actual Nazis, simple as. No nuance needed.

    i said that they're fascists because while in power the party materially, directly supported a genocidal ethnostate. if you're not shouting from the rafters that it needs to stop, but are instead browbeating people to uncritically support them and silencing and berating people critical of them, then you're part of that.

    i mean any given liberal could simply stop supporting the ethnostate doing a genocide and you wouldn't get called a fascist, but that would require some ability for introspection

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    my point is simply that what matters if a given communist is to get called ‘tankie’ or not is how willing they are to toe the line against americas enemies

    And I disagree. Shall we keep going in circles?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    if you're done being evasive and can't muster up an actual response then i guess we're done here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    I haven't been evasive, I've been succinct. We don't all need to gish-gallop and build out massive, loaded narratives to try and salvage a take.

    But since you're just fillibustering on a loop, if you get bored, maybe just ask unruffled if you can borrow the keys to the bias-confirmer-3000, toss my history in there, and talk in circles as much as you like.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    you can be both of those things. just because you're struggling to engage with anything other than straw targets or articulate any clear principles doesn't mean i'm gish galloping.

    you can reply with simply disengage and i won't respond.

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