184
Moderator banned from their own community for practicing harassment (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/fediverselore@lemmy.ca
307 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Its a shame because they're prominent voice on lemmy. Good on the admins for not tolerating this. I don't understand the point of targeting a person you don't like on the internet just because they said something that upset you and spamming their post with downvotes. If you don't like someone block their ass and be done with it. I agree with the perspective that its harassment (and an incredibly petty ineffective form of it at that)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (169 children)

Good on the admins for not tolerating this.

...

How many downvotes exactly are we talking about here?

Is it, like, two hundred? Or is it, like, ten?

Edit: Wait, what the fuck? I got bored and checked it more. How did dbzer0 pick literally the most helpful and drama-free of all possible Lemmy users to ban? As far as I can tell, literally the only thing the dude does is post about cool stuff and chat. I didn't even know he was active as a moderator in any real capacity.

checks profile to see if he actually did confess to mass-downvoting dozens of votes at some user or some other sin that, while objectively not "abusive," might have been at least arguably not ideal or something

One of the first things I found was:

The only reason it’s “Vote Blue no matter who” is because right now, in America’s FPTP system, the Dems are the only real alternative in most areas to the GOP. It’s a pithy saying, not a political essay. The lesson is not “LOYALTY TO COMRADE BIDEN”, but “Don’t throw your vote away on a symbolic action; preventing fascism is more important than virtue signaling to no one, especially since ballots are secret”

Ooooohhh.... oh. Oh.

Good fuckin' God man. dbzer0, we love you, quit trippin'. Just relax. Not everyone you don't like or agree with is "abusive."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 169 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    As far as I can tell, literally the only thing the dude does is post about cool stuff and chat.

    Nobody's perfect.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Wth is going on with the db0 instance? Db0 the guy seems very chill and understanding, at least in the posts I've seen.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    I didn't even know he was active as a moderator in any real capacity.

    They're a mod for MeanwhileOnGrad of all places and you've regularly engaged in the same debates they get embroiled in. This feels like some strange feigned ignorance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] 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

    So I said "Hey here's what I think"

    And so then you said "well you're WRONG because here's what I think instead"

    So far so good

    And then I said "Well I have reasons for what I think and you seem to be just shouting your opinion and only that so it seems like I win"

    And then you said "HOW DARE YOU HERE'S WHAT I THINK YOU'RE BEING UNFAIR"

    And then I got even more sarcastic about it and now you are hurt because of it

    It's understandable I guess. I still think that opinion + reasons is better than just OPINION OPINION OPINION even if I do grasp that you might have had different experiences than I have had and so different perspectives to bring to bear. Like I say you are refusing to elaborate even in the slightest which I feel like is a fair thing to ask you to do if you're going to call another human being a "twat."

    All good, you're free to block me if the sarcasm is overly hurtful, I do do that sometimes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    edit: goodness, that's a long reply and from just skimming the start of it, it seems you went to a lot of trouble to make a strawman. Too bad I ain't reading allat, you take care now.

    Apology accepted, you too

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

    Check out PJs LW modlog, it's not all rainbows and sunshine. I know you love to do that anyway.

    Nobody accused him of "mass downvoting", that's a strawman. What he was accused of was harassing one of our users, looking him up for the specific purpose of downvoting past posts/comments and to leave salty comments and reports on old threads like a goddam stalker, because he's an angry turbolib who blames the left (and Eugene in particular, for some reason) for the pathetic failure of the corporate-c**k-sucking Democrats to defeat Donald Trump. There is plenty of evidence for all of those things.

    At the very least, his behaviour around this has been petty and childish, not great qualities in a mod. And if he was even a slightly reasonable person, he probably wouldn't have quit our instance in a huff, and started up a personal grudge community to stir up pointless drama all because of a 7 day temp ban. Like just how fragile is his ego, anyway? We've all copped short bans without going into a full breakdown about it.

    And it's pretty well known by now (except for you it seems) PJ has a bad temper, and that he's been losing his shit more and more lately. He even states as such in his profile. While I do feel empathy for the fact he lives in chronic pain, that's no excuse for harassing one of our users in this manner.

    I believe that Eugene was sincere in his complaint, and he was very upset by the situation. PJ has all the power in this situation as a "power mod" and very active poster. Eugene is just a random user who was targeted for his political stance. And the fact you are defending PJ here instead of believing the victim is concerning to me. Much like the "believe women" slogan during the #metoo movement, my default position is to believe my upset users, not to side with the person bullying them. That's just how we roll at dbzer0 and I'm not gonna apologize for it.

    I mean, what's the difference between your position here and something like, "Harvey Weinstein has made lots of great movies and nobody else has complained about him, so that woman must be lying"? There is no difference. PJ is just busy trying to launder his bruised reputation imo, and you are helping him with that project.

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

    Technically the UN report only said that people who invaded on October 7th committed widespread sexual violence. They stopped short of saying whether or not it was Hamas (since a lot of people who were not Hamas also took part in the invasion and there was no real way to know who it was that did any particular thing.)

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

    How did dbzer0 pick literally the most helpful and drama-free of all possible Lemmy users to ban?

    Assuming you're not a PJ alt, I was surprised by your comment. It got me thinking.

    I'm beginning to wonder if PJ has a psychological disorder. They have stretches of being a nice, helpful person, interspersed with being a melodramatic, rage baiting, borderline troll shit stirrer. They tend to delete many of their shitty comments, showing they know the behaviour is wrong, but are still known and disliked by many for that behaviour.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago* (56 children)

    drama-free of all possible Lemmy users

    That's... not how I would describe the user.

    They're banned from blahaj lemmy for repeated and ongoing gatekeeping and they've got a mile long modlog...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 56 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    Ada's idea of gatekeeping includes using "you" as a pronoun.

    The other reply here, from the name I will not type, is by an instance-hopping / ban-evading spam goblin who posts right-wing propaganda and pretends he's just a curious lil leftist who thinks it's neat-o.

    This whole thing is an ESH that may extend to everyone commenting, including me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (37 children)

    Specifically, he said (among other similar things):

    There's an argument to be made for neopronouns in the following cases: - People who don't like 'They' as singular - People who believe there should be a neopronoun(s) that is not simply neutral/neuter, but explicitly for NB identities To the first, I will die on this grammatical hill, but I also acknowledge that it's a matter of taste. If you want to push for Xe/Xim or whichever as gender-neutral-singular, that's fine, and I'll respect your pronouns, but I really do think that 'they' is perfectly serviceable as-is and we should just expand usage of it. If the cultural zeitgeist goes against it, though, it's whatever, if Xe/Xim becomes the new norm, I'll swap to Xe/Xim. To the second, I understand the argument, but I find it non-intuitive. I'll respect the pronouns of people who want a dozen different new pronouns added to the lexicon, but I'll also vehemently argue against the practice. Pronouns are meant to streamline communication, and gendered language itself is something of a relict.

    "Gatekeeping." Ban.

    This whole thing is stupid. I don't even want to step into or bring up the other big relevant issue that caused strife because it's even stupider than that.

    You guys are fuckin' with this guy because he did downvoting, and because he expressed what overall sounded to me like pretty reasonable opinions honestly.

    People aren't hating on you here. It's fine. You don't have to turn everyone into an enemy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 37 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    am I misunderstanding the definition of gatekeeping? It sounds like he doesn't like neo-pronouns because the complicate language and he sees them as pointless but will still use them?

    Is from when blajah was bending over backwards to defend drag?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Drag is banned from blahaj. Gatekeeping people's identities and pronouns is still against the rules.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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
  • [–] 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 (2 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago*

    Gatekeeping is when you don't think what I want you to, so I have to remove you from my community because you didn't think what I wanted you to (edit: means YOU were gatekeeping, obviously, in case somehow it wasn't clear)

    Abuse is when you downvote people I say you can't downvote

    Ban is okay though, for someone I say it's okay for. That's not abuse like downvotes are. Obviously.

    Get with the program

    /s

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • 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
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (22 children)

    Is blahaj drama free?

    People have pointed out some times when he intersected with some drama that I wasn't aware of, so sure, fair enough. I guess my point is even when I look at those he definitely was not the source of the drama in the situation. He was banned from blahaj for literally just showing up and saying reasonable things. If that's against the rules of your instance, then sure, you can do that, but don't try to flip it around where the person showing up saying reasonable things is all of a sudden an asshole somehow.

    Nothing in the comment I quoted is "adding flames to the fire." It's not "repeated and deliberate arguments." Nothing is transphobic, nothing is denying anyone else's identity. That's why I quoted some of the actual words, to make it clear how ultimately reasonable he was being however you want to spin it into some kind of hate crime. A lot of people feel like, if they think something reasonable, they're allowed to say it, and it's weird and controlling for some other person to say that opinion is the incorrect opinion and demand that they not say it within certain spaces.

    I get that you're interpreting it as some kind of deliberate naughty disobedience, but you're not his boss, you're not his parent. The whole "moderator" / "ban" paradigm has brought in this nutty thinking where people who run an instance can be the boss of what opinions are allowed or not allowed on that instance. It's weird. In my opinion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Blahaj policy is very explicitly that it's a safe space, and transphobia and transphobia-adjacent content (and other forms of bigotry) will be removed. It's supposed to be somewhere people can go and have it taken as axiomatic that their neopronouns are valid, and therefore they won't have to debate them, so while it's pretty reasonable to say that you'd prefer people grew to be happy with they and neopronouns didn't become a permanent feature of English because they're awkward, it's not Blahaj-friendly, so can't be said on Blahaj, especially if you're going to repeat it a lot.

    It's perfectly reasonable for people to like crisps, but it doesn't mean I have to let people keep adding them to my cake when I'm trying to eat cake.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    It's a feature, not a bug, at least when they're upfront about it. With non-federated platforms, you're still subject to the domain's lord and master, but you can't pick who that is or maintain access to your communities if you upset them.

    While Blahaj isn't the right instance for me, it's no problem that it exists side by side with other instances, and people who want to use social media with no risk of running into things they're already fed up with can have a place for that. If you get banned from somewhere, it's because it wasn't the right fit for you, and nothing's stopping you from finding or making a place that is. It's not like the has to be only one 196, it's just that the one where all the cool people are is the one where everyone agrees to give everyone the benefit of the doubt on all things gender and sexuality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    You act like the majority of us on Blahaj don't agree with these policies. Like it's a dictatorship that we're being subjected to against our will. Queer, and trans, people aren't one homogenous block of opinions, there are going to be plenty of disagreements and that's okay. Blahaj just isn't for them, like Blair White wouldn't fit in either and Blahaj is better off for that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Fair enough, but it's just not impacting blahaj users. It's not like a private forum on a server somewhere. You're participating in a big intertwined network, but then reserving the right to run some sections of it according to these super-strict (and to me pretty arbitrary) rules, and so you're winding up with a situation where blahaj people can talk to off-blahaj people, on some blahaj community, and some off-blahaj person can see it and respond reasonably and then get attacked, falsely accused of being transphobic, and then have it escalate into this thing where (for example, in this exact post) they're getting kicked off being allowed to run their own forums on some whole different instance, because now they're officially "bad" with the way they violated the dictates of the blahaj lords as part of the evidence.

    If blahaj was its own private area, then sure. "Only come here if you're okay with the rules." That makes sense. But they're participating in a shared network, storing their messages on other people's servers, having posts replicated into random other sections for random people to see them, but then retreating to the "but this part of the space is MINE!" standpoint when anyone tries to raise any kind of objection to how they set up the rules for it. And also leveling this bigotry accusation if anyone doesn't obey how they want the interaction to go.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    This is the exact nature of decentralised networks though. It's a tacit agreement of "you follow my rules when you're commenting on my instance and I follow your rules when I comment on your instance". It's a shared attempt at civility, and if that breaks down, defederation is only a few clicks away. We've never had direct control over other instances, so we've defederated them when that civility has broken down, and other instances have the exact same right to do the same with us. The Blahaj admins are paying hundreds of dollars, usually out of their own pocket, per month to run the instance. I think they get to dictate what goes on in the spaces they run. It's not like other spaces, like lemmy.world, don't have their own unpopular rules, like their heavy-handedness with "advocating violence".

    The reason PJ gets called a bigot, is because he dramatically said in that original Blahaj meta thread that he was leaving the instance for good, but then has spent the last 6-9 months going around to every space he can, dragging the Blahaj admins through the mud and loudly proclaiming "dragons aren't real" like it's some self-evident revelation that proves how smart he is. Drag wasn't even a fucking dragon, they were a dragon fucker! It was literally drag's username for fluffs sake. It's not Blahaj's fault that other instance admins have gotten sick of his whiny, self-aggrandising bullcrap. Drag was literally banned from Blahaj not long after that thread, trans people just don't believe respecting pronouns are a cookie you get for being one of the good ones... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

    I think we're probably just not going to see eye to eye on this. I specifically didn't want to get dragged into this whole tarpit of tribal bitterness, but then I waded into it deliberately on purpose, so that's on me I guess.

    I actually wrote and then just deleted some stuff, because what's the point. I feel like I've said what I had to say on it and you have a differing point of view. All good. I'll leave only the thing I think gets to the heart of it:

    If blahaj admins would just be straight-up about it, and say "Listen. This dragon person is clearly a troll, and we're banning them for that reason, but we don't want to allow people to decide pronouns on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the rule produces a stupid result, but that's the rule we settled on and we have good reasons not to bend it in any circumstance or have to have long debates about this stuff every week, so please respect it or we will ban you," I don't think there would be any kind of issue. That's a decent and human-to-human way of defining the interaction that gets across the point and still respects their good reasons for the rule. To me (and maybe you may disagree with this), it seemed like instead of that they said "HOW DARE YOU MISGENDER THIS PERSON YOU TRANSPHOBIA ADJACENT BIGOT" and then went on to (as in the current post) continue to whine about how horrible it was that anyone was trying to point out that (a) the user in question was clearly a transphobic troll (b) going to bat for them was ridiculous. And, they constantly talk about how those people were wrong, and bigoted, and shouldn't be talking that way even off the blahaj instance.

    That's my take on it, I don't think I want to go back and forth about it much much more, you're welcome to the final word if you like.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    That's one of the problems with the "I am lord and master of this domain, and all will obey me and my nutty definitions of words like 'transphobia' into some wild alternate reality" model.

    Ah yes, defining what is and what isn't transphobic to a bunch of trans people. Always a good look. I look forward to your panel on teaching black people what is and what isn't racist next.

    This is literally how Reddit works. There are ground rules that Reddit made, and the mods for each subreddit are free to make their own on top of that and enforce them as they please. If you want some open floor of debate, Twitter is right there. Blahaj was made by trans people, for trans people. You are in our home by our grace, like a straight man at a lesbian bar. You can't be surprised when the owners take umbrage with you repeatedly coming in and trying to debate "what is and isn't homophobic" with the lesbians. And this isn't some crazy demand - it's literally just asking you to call people what they want to be referred to by. I shudder to think how you handle nicknames when Frederick wants to go by Rick instead of Fred. Regardless of how silly you or I may think "drag" is as a pronoun, you still should refer to drag as such because it's simply basic human decency. Respecting people isn't some reward you can dole out to the worthy like a lord in his fiefdom.

    And the reason that Lemmy seems so queer-friendly is because of the constant battle of the mods and admins across the instances to keep it that way. There are right-wing chud instances out there that you and I have never seen because the rest of Lemmy refuses to federate with them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 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 (3 children)

    You really need to listen to what you're saying.

    You're arguing for the right to deny people their own identities in their own safe spaces whilst claiming that somehow, the real issue is letting queer folk choose the language that works best for them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Regardless of the stuff about Ada's tone, it seems like your ultimate point was the classic "paradox of tolerance." I certainly do not see enforcing a safe space as policing identity. Regardless of how respectfully done, deciding when it is okay to respect someone's identity is against blahaj rules. The consistent moderation with no room for chipping away at the edges is what attracted me to the instance. This person broke blahaj rules. They may have broken it politely (I disagree. Tone does not excuse content), but they broke the rules. Banning them for repeated invalidation of others' identities is not policing their identity. Your identity cannot be predicated on the invalidation of others. We have every prerogative to be intolerant of intolerance.

    Again, regardless of Ada's tone, the point stands. You keep dancing around that. The rules were broken. This user acted inappropriately for the space they were in. They are not forced to use blahaj communities, and chose to do so while violating the rules. They have no right to our safe space if they cannot ensure it is safe for others. I strongly dislike the "just asking questions" polite veneer of your comments while very intentionally dodging the elephant in the room, which is that the user did wrong for the space they were in, regardless if you agree or not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (4 replies)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Over the freaking Drag troll issue. You'll forgive us if not everybody shares the same opinion of who's creating the drama in that particular case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    drama-free

    That's not how I would describe the user

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

    Yeah, I was mostly just referring to the bit about being banned from Blahaj. Shoulda made that clear

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Drag, as in someone who is also banned from Blahaj? 🤨

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I’ve never had a problem with that user either.

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

    Not only have I never had a problem with him, I've literally never seen him have a problem with anyone or vice versa.

    I looked back in his modlog, and pretty much what I found was silliness. I've said before, I really think there are people on Lemmy trying to stir up absurd drama for reasons of their own to use to attack mods especially that they don't like and get others to bully them for being "wrong" in some kind of artificial way on some kind of various hot-button issue. This looks 100% like that.

    Anyone who feels like this dude is wrong, go look at his modlog, make your own decision.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] 16 points 1 year ago (4 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (61 replies)