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)
…
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:
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.”
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.
Phillip somehow claims he doesn’t have the time/energy to respond to this, but has been replying to everything else for hours.
I think he just wants to ignore you and say he wins.
Edit: a few days now and he still refuses to. Almost like he’s acting in bad faith!
Lol who knew he was such a pugjesus fanboy?
Anyone who can read.
Truly bizarre take, especially considering that what was expressly stated was that I didn’t expressly look them up, and that the only ‘salty comment’ I left was when I was literally and explicitly mentioned by name, but thanks for confirming that this is all over you throwing a shitfit over my politics because I feel like getting murdered by Nazis is a bad deal. Sorry that my anger makes you uncomfortable over your bootlicking of Nazis.
“If you were a truly reasonable person, you would have sat down and meekly taken it from the Authorities like a good anarchist would!”
Sorry for not agreeing with you playing bizarre asspat games over my apparent biggest fan getting pissed that they get downvoted when I disagree with them?
It’s not chronic pain which causes me to dislike people who simp for Nazis and comments which reinforce that.
What.
How does being an active poster give me power in this situation.
For that matter, how does being a mod give me power in this situation? So far as I know, my biggest fan doesn’t even post in any of the comms I mod?
Are you just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks? lmao
… they’ve been upset for seven months now, then, considering that they bring me up at every opportunity to bitch about me when we rarely interact.
Like, Ghost is out here blatantly lying on things that I can (and have) literally quote to disprove, and you’re pretending they’re the victim. Because I’m a ‘turbolib’ for not wanting to get murdered by Nazis.
But hey, I get it, you need to asspat Nazi enablers like yourself, while people who are going to die because of the Nazis you ushered into office can fuck off. That’s what true solidarity means over at dbzer0, it’s quite apparent. :)
So a seven month campaign of falsely calling me a transphobe and Zionist is okay, but downvoting someone is harassment?
Wew. You aren’t even trying to pretend to have any standards, are you?
Y I K E S
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.
Exactly, tell me you look at Pug’s comment history and their moderation history and tell me he’s “drama free”.
Notice how Phillip didn’t respond to this.
Fucking what
When was the last time I deleted a comment of my own?
Oh, I don’t like engaging with him or any of his posts because he tends to be a loudmouth radlib but he is a power user and his posts on other communities are just fine.
It’d be nice if I could, like, put a comment on one of his political posts, though, without it turning into a gigantic, massive thread arguing about the specifics of electoralism and lesser evil and all of that nonsense.
Okay, so now we’ve got “loser,” “twat,” “loudmouth,” has a psychological disorder, “zio,” mental issues, the whole nine yards.
And, somehow, that’s not abusive. PJ giving downvotes and arguing about politics, though, is.
Good to know.
He’s a genocide-supporting Zionist radlib who thinks it’s fun to spend his day insulting people who bring in Marxist/anarchist theory.
By the way, radlib is not an insult. It describes his political position 🙄
Finally, he even admitted that he is a loudmouth (tangentially), so I don’t know what you’re going on about here. Someone who will argue with you for 100 plus comments I would consider to be a “loudmouth”.
It would be insulting to describe what he does as debating or arguing. He spends most of the time using falicious techniques in order to try and point score the best he can, so that he doesn’t actually have to engage with anything you say, and then when you bring up something specific, he’ll just ignore the point.
It’s also entirely inappropriate to follow a user around to small communities that you’re not a part of to downvote when the voting system is supposed to be whether or not a post matches the tone of the community.
It’s unfortunate you’re unable to view nuance.
LOL
Radlib is when DemSoc.
Bruh, last time I remember arguing with you all you did was spit out the names of logical fallacies without understand what they meant. You played apologist for Russian genocide and then got upset when I was no longer interested in playing games with you.
Which small community was I not a part of, by the way?
You know something? I actually double-checked my profile after we had that conversation. I hadn’t said shit about Russia. You made wild accusations based on my instance and my profile.
I then corrected you when I said that Russia is not committing a genocide in Ukraine because they aren’t killing roughly 500 people a day like Israel is. That’s not to say Russia isn’t committing their own atrocities. There are plenty of mass graves in Ukraine that show the ferocity of Russian occupation.
Since a dem soc is literally the most radical position a liberal takes, you’re a radical liberal. It’s almost like you don’t understand political terms.
No idea, simply repeating the argument that you posted in the screenshot from that eugenevdebs
This you, Nazi?
“Only the FASTEST genocide at any given time counts!”
Keep bootlicking Nazi.
Legitimately laughed.
Are you exposing yourself as a mod of the politics community where you deleted my accurate comment that Russia isn’t committing a genocide?
And you’re pissed off about other admins abusing their power.
Alright, you little removed, since you like to whine about the Russian genocide so much, why don’t you link something from the UN claiming about how Russia’s committing a genocide? Maybe some other NGO?
Hey, you know what I found that’s really fucking interesting about this topic?
Weird that the ICJ found probable cause in Palestine, but didn’t find anything in Ukraine.
Zionist loser says what.
No, I just have the basic competency necessary to check the modlog.
“To substantiate Russia’s claims of genocide”
Holy fucking shit. Your literacy is legitimately this poor, isn’t it?
Lol
Okey dokey
Radlib is when you want to abolish capitalism, and the more you want to abolish capitalism, the more radlib you are.
Abusive is when people stack up two hundred and thirteen comments freaking out about what a terrible person you are and insulting you personally, and you start replying to them
These are battered posters here, subjected to my relentless cruelty of downvotes for repeating shitty unsubstantiated slander and defending myself from easily disproven accusations that I can back with literal screenshots (which is honestly not something I often have the pleasure of doing). Press F to pay respects.
They’re the real victims here. After all, someone ambushed them and started talking about politics, which they have clearly specified in their profiles as something they don’t consent to speaking or hearing about.
Don’t even get me started on the idea of someone doing moderation about a political topic. On Lemmy.
https://lemmy.ml/post/33527767
Yeah, this had put a target on his back in any lefty instance.
Also, following a user from tiny community to tiny community that you’re not a part of just to downvote their posts that you disagree with personally because you got into an argument with somebody is a bit extreme and I agree with the admins that they did the right thing.
It’s hilarious to me that this whole community of people is having a days-long freakout about what a big deal it is that PugJesus commits this multitude of sins (which have gradually reduced in scope from “abusive” “transphobic” “zionist” whatever else into “he’s a liberal” (allegedly) “he argues about politics and I think that shouldn’t be allowed apparently”)… while also accusing him of caring way too much and being a loser therefore.
Y’all should follow your own advice, and get a life and stop freaking out about what some other person on Lemmy did.
Tell Pug that.
Seven months of easily disproven lies, but what’s REALLY obsessive is [checks notes] downvoting comments one disagrees with
Nah we are just enjoying all the bit of Schadenfreude.
You should be telling that to PJ who spends way too much time on Lemmy. I’m not the one who created a community just a removed about being blocked. Let them know to touch some grass while you’re at it.
Also, the irony of you saying this about a power user who posts quite literally hundreds of times a week.
Cool! Now accuse him of caring way too much about politics, and getting in heated debates about it like a LOSER, speaking as you are from your lemmy.ml address. That’ll make perfect sense too.
Ooh, you’re gonna bust out a genetic fallacy. We’re gonna start with the fallacious arguments already?
Oh, so I’m a loser for spending any time looking at this, but he’s not a loser for talking a bunch of shit about politics that he does not understand and cannot take any criticism for and spending a bunch of time being a royal asshole to everybody who disagrees with him but I am loser.
Man, I gotta go make my own little whiny community on pifed, so then maybe the great Philip the Bucket won’t see me as such a loser.
Okay, fair enough. Let me click on your profile and see how anti-political you are in general, so I can be sure not to judge you because of your instance.
Oh. That was quick lol. I didn’t even have to read.
Correct. Spending extensive time criticizing some other user for some kind of imagined sin, through a lens of purely “how can I insult this person and come up with mischaracterizations or framings of real things they did that make them look as bad as possible, or else just making up total bullshit that would have been bad if they’d done it,” is loser behavior. Yes.
Uhhhhh
Really trying not to reach for the genetic fallacy here lol
Okay. My main point was that, caring about politics and being impassioned about wanting to say your thing and stick up for your viewpoint, also wanting to attack the perceived opposite viewpoint, is more than anything the single defining characteristic of a lot of communities on Lemmy. I’ll say it that way. To me, that’s a good thing. I was actually really happy when I came here originally and found tankies and anarchists. It speaks to (a) people who care about politics, which speaking as a terminally online weirdo I really like (b) a diversity of viewpoints. It’s a good thing. Now you’re trying to turn it around into because his viewpoint is one you don’t agree with, he’s all of a sudden a big doo doo head because he cares about it enough to argue about it… while, presumably, caring so much about it yourself that you get impassioned and start typing all heated-up about it if someone disagrees with you.
To me, arguing about politics and having strong opinions about it is fine. It is one of the defining features of Lemmy. It sounds like you’re all of a sudden only deciding that it’s this stupid loser weirdo behavior because he has a different viewpoint than you, and because you can’t handle that, you have to try to spin around in any direction you can to find something to use to attack him with. Instead of just debating with him on the merits of whatever it is (or, alternatively, just leaving it alone like a more normal person).
How’d I do at avoiding the fallacy?
No need! Your instance will happily ban anyone who disagrees with you too loudly, so you don’t need to, the whiny little community is already created for you.
Oh shit I blew it at the end lol
Yes, I was pointing out your hypocrisy, the one that you’re still very clearly showing, where you use the same things that you’re poking at me with, that you just protected PJ for doing.
Well, it’s not imagined if he’s getting, you know, banned for it. And there’s a lot of us here to corroborate how much of a “fun guy” he’s been.
I never claimed I was anti-political, I only claimed that PJ has a propensity to attack people. I will continue to argue with somebody until I feel like my point is across, and if you continue to comment, so will I.
I don’t care about his viewpoint. He’s more than allowed to have his viewpoint. He is allowed to advocate for harm reduction. He doesn’t post sources to anything that he claims, he won’t back up anything that he’s talking about, he just gets nasty. I don’t get nasty until you’re nasty first. I give what I get.
If he would, you know, maybe respond with well meaning comment talking about it in a debating fashion, and then let it go when it’s clear people aren’t going to agree, you would have a point, but that’s not what he does, and that’s not how he argues.
For instance, I happen to know quite a lot about October 7th and Hamas, and so he’s claiming that there was a ton of sexual violence done by Hamas but when the UN investigated it, they did not find systematic evidence of sexual violence, nor did Israel work with them, which is unusual. Not only that, the report he references is one that has been discredited as a source of statistics for sexual violence on October 7th. When I point out that in other similar situations like what happened in Rwanda or in Syria that they were able to track individual people the majority of the time with less surveillance I get called names for daring to ask these questions.
That’s the epitome of the way your boy debates.
He claims there’s a Russian genocide. I point out that the ICJ did not find convincing evidence that Russia was committing a genocide in Ukraine where they did find some semblance of that in Palestine. He immediately just tells me I’m parroting Russian propaganda and that I’m a Nazi. I asked for a source and he says that I’m sealioing.
Believe what you want, but this guy is not good news, he does not argue in good faith, and while he may have people’s best interests at heart, he’s certainly not winning any hearts.
What?
This whole conversation is turning very stupid. Talking about politics is great. Insulting other people directly or making up things they didn’t do is not. That’s true on all sides, in my opinion.
Me pointing out your hypocrisy in suddenly freaking out about PJ talking about politics and that meaning he’s an always-online weirdo doesn’t mean all of a sudden I am being hypocritical about it.
Honestly, I just don’t feel like being in this conversation any more, it feels like you have more energy to try to “win” it and care more about it than I do. I said what I had to say.
I can literally look down the thread and see the sources he’s citing to you. They are pretty comprehensive. I tried to get involved in the same conversation with you, I think I got bored of the conversation before my comment posted, all I can say is that it’s completely stupid (and absolutely on-brand for lemmy.ml) to claim that someone who says there IS genocide in Ukraine somehow means they’re Zionist or pro-Western, or saying there is NOT genocide in Gaza. Putin’s ICC warrant literally listed child deportation as the primary crime. There is also genocide in Gaza, it’s a lot more unambiguous there than in Ukraine, but they are both happening.
Also:
https://lemmy.world/search?q=sealioning&type=All&listingType=All&creatorId=1252800&page=1&sort=TopAll
https://lemmy.world/search?q=sealion&type=All&listingType=All&creatorId=1252800&page=1&sort=TopAll
https://lemmy.world/post/33270073/18378824
HOLY God
All I can picture is two people in a Will Farrel movie or something just aggressively slap-fighting overhand at each other while leaning their faces away and grimacing. I think I wasted time taking you seriously and trying to respond to what you were saying lol.
If PJ wants to talk with you, he’s welcome to it, I think I’ve said as much as I plan to at this point.
lol
For… pointing out that Hamas did, in fact, commit sexual violence on Oct 7?
For which there is no evidence aside from claims by Zionist Israelis, the same group that is committing genocide right now. This hasbara was put to bed over a year ago.
What actually happened on Oct. 7 was that Israelis killed and burned (in no particular order) their own civilians and then blamed Hamas. And it is the Israelis themselves who have been systematically raping… Palestinians.
Edit to add: Immediately reaching for the “⚐ Create Report,” as usual 🙄
Are you claiming that Hamas, systemically, as official policy, weaponized sexual violence on October 7th?
Because then, yeah, I think we’d have a problem.
Edit:
And it looks like you’re referring to that brand-new study that was just put out by that Israeli think-tank in their best effort to try and change what the definition of sexual violence is in order to get Hamas Blacklisted? Yeah, I remember that study. It’s already been specifically discredited by the UN and a number of NGOs.
No, I’m saying Hamas committed sexual violence on Oct 7, I didn’t realize that was un-fucking clear.
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.)
Well, to play devil’s advocate, we don’t actually know if it was a Hamas. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable, There hasn’t been any other corroborating evidence. In Rwanda and in Syria during those genocides, when those sexual assaults took place, we were able to track down individuals, where there was quite a lot less surveillance. Which is tracked by the UN.
Feels like random individual actors committed sexual violence, and then the Israeli government is blaming Hamas. Wouldn’t be the first time since they accused Hamas of being ISIS while literally arming ISIS groups in Gaza to help commit a genocide
Jesus fucking Christ.
There’s that famous response you’re so well known for.
Yes, horror at Nazis like you denying sexual assault verified by the UN.
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.
You are dead on. I hate that shit, but it’s mega popular here, especially these chronically online weirdos who think they’re in a holy war against eachothers opinions.
The dudes who have the time to get in fights and document them, or spend their precious minutes digging through mod logs for evidence. They are telling on themselves.
And Pug is doing that right now, he made a community dedicated to doing it.
Seven months of bitching and lies about some internet rando who lives rent-free in your head is impressive.
Yeah it’s feigned ignorance, he knows what he is doing.
Only because I can’t leave. Check the modlog.
I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean but the modlog shows you actively mod there.
Any moderating by me done on MeanwhileonGrad is if I mod coming straight from my inbox without checking the comm. I’m uncomfortable being a mod there.
Then don’t be a rubber stamp and leave it for goat to handle.
I see, unsurprisingly, you didn’t read my comment.
He has literally said he wants to start fights online because he finds it fun, and that hell never stop harassing members because he doesn’t like them.
When did he say that? Are you sure he didn’t say some totally different and more sensible thing that you’re choosing to wildly exaggerate into that?
I can actually pretty much guarantee that that’s not what he said. I guess I missed some LW politics community drama that he was involved with, so sure maybe my side was wrong initially, but I’m pretty confident that particularly the second part of that is just some kind of trumped-up misinterpretation of what he actually said.
The first part was like ~6 months back, the second part was eariler this week.
When I called him out for stalking my profile, he responded within the hour on a thread that was 10 days old. I didn’t say his name, I just documented his actions on that single post and comment, going back to my account to downvote anything I agreed with.
He then said anytime I “said something stupid” he checks my account and goes over it to downvote me. I don’t even do that and I dislike him. Check his modlog, it was one of the things he said before a mod removed it.
He also said (According to several other users) he will never forgive the “protest voters” so he’ll fight them online.
Except that’s also a lie
Literally the opposite of what I said, but I know you can’t help yourself. Without lying about your favorite poster, after all, what would you have left?
Okay, so something totally different than what you said lol.
You’re welcome to dig up the actual statements and show them to me, to shed some more light. If you don’t feel like doing that, then I don’t feel like doing it on your behalf and we can conclude things there.
I’ll try to go through his account of thousands of comments in the last few months, and if I find something before I leave for work I’ll let you know. Is there a way to search someone’s entire account without just Ctrl+F?
Search
Thank you, I’ll try to do that once I’m done prepping my crockpot and if I have time before work.
Already sourced the one from months ago that you claimed - in fact, I even used the crop you used when talking about it previously (of course, it didn’t actually say what you claim it did), so all you have to do is find the more recent comment. :)
I’m shocked
I’m really not trying to get drawn into giving this whole nonsense more energy than it deserves, but it is absolutely wild to me that it’s so common within this thread to think:
Like if you’re starting from first principles and picking the one that should be complained about I know which one I would pick.
Like I said, it’s whatever. I’m an old hand online. I grew up on forums and imageboards, this kind of drama is old hat. I just want to have it clear and on record from me that it’s bullshit when I see it brought up. Beyond that, it’s not much more than irritating or amusing, depending on how pathetic any given attempt is.
As quoted by my biggest fan
Hey, my top fan is lying again!
Nobody’s perfect.
Yeah. I missed some drama because I tend to avoid lemmy.world politics forums because they are unbearable. Point taken.
The guy denied sexual assault by Hamas during Oct 7, got upset when I called him out for it, and then immediately downvoted a bunch of anti-fascist posts, for which I banned him from the comm that he did it in. In that thread, for that matter, there are all sorts of people falsely calling me a transphobe and saying I refuse to use neopronouns.
Man, you definitely were running some major hostility towards world at one point. I’ll concede that the comment was probably overstating the point, and definitely unnecessarily hostile, but it also wasn’t unprovoked.
What
Man, I will be the first to admit I’m abrasive and do a hell of a lot more than ‘post about cool stuff and chat’, but my only involvement in the 196 migration was that when the mods did move (or try to move) 196, months after I’d stopped using Blahaj entirely, I started using it on .world.
They denied “systematic sexual abuse by Hamas,” which is a specific claim in the report made by the Dinah Project, and which the UN has been unable to find evidence for in its own fact-finding missions (partly due to the Israeli government’s obstruction of their investigation). The UN’s own reports find some individual cases of sexual violence committed against Israelis on Oct. 7, not sexual violence committed against Israelis by Hamas as a systematic tool of war. That you refuse to acknowledge these are separate claims is the issue at hand here.
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…
Specifically, he said (among other similar things):
“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.
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?
Specifically, I wasn’t banned for anything regarding pronouns - I was banned from Blahaj, MONTHS after I’d stopped using Blahaj (because I wasn’t interested in stirring up trouble breaking another instance’s rules) for saying, on dbzer0, that I didn’t believe in dragons
Drag is banned from blahaj. Gatekeeping people’s identities and pronouns is still against the rules.
Wait wtf why? I thought blahaj was in support of marginalized communities
Yea and the dragon person constantly mocked trans people.
Even beyond the transparent transphobic trolling they were displaying in the first place, even after Ada got reports that they were actively encouraging other users to harm themselves and other objectively rule-breaking behavior, she was still going to bat for them and refusing to take any action (and still taking action against anyone who criticized them), and basically explained that it was because she felt bad that they were getting so much abuse so she was willing to overlook their misbehavior. Eventually, they did something to Ada, and at that point, she suddenly realized they were bad, and evicted them.
Everybody makes mistakes and misjudgements. It’s fine. But I feel like Ada has probably experienced things in her life that make it feel like pronouns are the most important thing, for example more important even than kicking out an obvious troll or making a safe space for queer people who are looking for a place to be but don’t 100% agree with or obey her stance on certain things. I think it makes her susceptible to viewing every situation through that singular lens, and thinking anyone viewing it through any other lens at all must be being evil on purpose (and then going on the attack against them). Q.v., comments elsewhere in this thread.
I have no idea. I tried to talk sense into her elsewhere in these comments, got nowhere, and oh well.
Drag was a prolific troll, drag just has a right to their pronouns ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You’ve perma-banned me from 11 communities on blahaj.zone for ‘Racism/Bigotry’. Care to point out which posts or comments of mine caused you to activate the banhammer?
I haven’t banned you from any communities. I instance banned you. Which I did, because you implied that Arab folk are all sexist.
Which comes on the back of previous comments removed for transphobia, insults and posting swastikas.
I’ll be instance banning you again now.
Still waiting
Still waiting for receipts.
Unlike other mods who either removed my comments or temp banned me from specific communities, you’ve permabanned me from one instance and are saying you’ll do it for another.
Let’s see how horrible my posts/comments were to merit such drastic action.
Which comment? Also, implied? Are you sure that’s not you reading too much into something because of your own biases?
Which comment?
Seriously?
I’m a Hindu guy from India. You’ve got a problem with that?
Nazis called their symbol Hakenkreuz (Hooked Cross). I wonder why Anglos chose a word associated with Eastern religions when translating that.
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
And if it was a single comment, you’d have a point, but it was ongoing, repeated and deliberate arguments in a space that had explicit rules against what he was doing, rules that he understood. And rather than following the rules, or posting in other communities, he brought it up over and over again, arguing that he has the right to decide other people’s identities.
And when banned for it, he made sure to keep adding flames to the fire.
Whatever else he is, he is not drama free.
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.
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.
But not only did I explicitly say that I was willing to use neopronouns, but my ban from Blahaj was over something said OFF of Blahaj entirely, long after I stopped using Blahaj. Namely, I said that I didn’t believe that dragons were real, and for that reason, Ada was summoned, and thought that was a great reason to instance ban someone who hadn’t even used Blahaj in months.
Yeah. The whole thing is stupid. I’m moderately confident that this is either:
Honestly, I wouldn’t even stress about it. I get the impulse to try to defend yourself vigorously from this stuff but they’re not going to listen to anything sensible anyway, and they’ll be able to cherry pick instances of you getting upset to use later as proof that you’re some kind of monster. If you want my advice about how to look at it.
Oh, I figure they’re not going to listen. But I have the urge to at least put a defense of myself out in public. I have a great many flaws as it is; I’ll good goddamned if I let people attribute made-up ones to me without at least being disputed.
Yes. 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. Human interaction doesn’t need to work that way, even if it gets more comfortable when you’re aligned with the lord and master to do it that way.
Personally I think that two things are going on here: One, the whole Lemmy model where people are divided into the lords who must be obeyed no matter how arbitrary their rules, and the people who must obey, breeds and normalizes some toxic models of interaction. And, two, basically 100% of Lemmy is already queer-friendly and trans-friendly, and so an instance that wants to “stand out” as a particularly queer-friendly instance has to keep ratcheting up the level of overt queer-friendliness of the rules of their instance until they’re again in a position of giving other people a hard time for not being queer-friendly enough. And so the inevitable conclusion is that the rules have to include things like “dragon is a gender!” and “questioning certain things I say is transphobia even when it’s not!”
Like I say, in my opinion, the whole thing is fuckin’ ridiculous. I have heard the same from queer people who have been drummed out of blahaj for exactly the same reasons (basically, having and stating opinions that aren’t the official lord-and-master opinion.) In my opinion that makes for a bad model for an instance. It’s got nothing to do with the identity of the people who are making the rules that way for the instance, it has to do with the nature of the interactions that it causes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I hope not.
We’re an explicitly protective, safe space for a minority group that is actively targeted by governments, political institutions, churches, and bigots in general
So of course we create drama. Bigots will make sure of it.
Nah. He was banned for repeatedly, deliberately, and knowingly breaking the rules. Whether or not you think gatekeeping someones identity is acceptable, blahaj.zone has rules against it, and his response to it was to deliberately break the rules and stir up shit.
Tough shit. When someones “reasonable” opinion involves positioning themselves as the arbiter of other folks validity and identity, they’re doing harm. When they choose to repeatedly and deliberately do that in a safe space for those folk, they’re repeatedly and deliberately doing harm and breaking the rules.
All of which to say, even if you’re a gatekeeper like him, who thinks that you have the right to tell other people their own identities, if you come in to a blahaj community and do it, you’re breaking blahaj rules. If you choose to knowingly and repeatedly do it, whilst then complaining about it in various meta spaces, then you’re breaking rules and stirring up drama.
I did it again, typed a bunch of tit-for-tat stuff and then deleted it. Here’s my attempt to get to the heart of the matter (partially from elsewhere in this thread):
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 interaction that gets across the point and still respects the 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) blahaj going to bat for them was ridiculous. And, you still constantly talk about how those people were wrong, and bigoted, and shouldn’t be talking that way even off the blahaj instance.
Same for banning PJ. It would be fine if you said “He was kind of pushy about trying to make his point and although he clearly wasn’t coming from any hostile place, we tried explaining the rules and he kept doing it, so we banned him.” But no. It’s “repeatedly and deliberately doing harm,” complaining about him trying to justify himself off-instance after the ban like he is required to just shut up and take it instead of voicing his side of the story, “positioning themselves as the arbiter of other folks validity and identity,” all this apocalyptic stuff.
I mean… aren’t you positioning yourself as the arbiter of other folks’ validity and identity? You positioned yourself as the protector of LGBTQ+ people but you have no problem booting them from your space if they don’t adhere to your precise details of what that means. (Like, for example, protecting the space from obviously-transphobic trolls, I feel like some of them would think you should be proactive about.) When you boot them for not adhering to that, isn’t that… gatekeeping? Or no?
He was repeatedly and deliberately gatekeeping people’s identities. I don’t know how to make that any clearer to you.
Whether or not any given person is a troll, it’s not an excuse to make people’s identities a reward for good behaviour.
If you decide that taking away peoples identities “because they’re a troll” is ok, then you’re telling the gender diverse people around you that you don’t see them for who they are, and that you’re just pretending to accept them as long as they behave in ways you find appropriate. Normalising the idea that we can decide other peoples identities is literally the goal of trolls, and so when you see a troll and decide that’s a good reason to invalidate people, you’re feeding the troll, and hurting the gender diverse folk around you.
I will respect a trolls identity, even as I ban them, because opening the door to deciding which identities are valid does nothing but hurt vulnerable people.
This was all explained to PJ, several times, and he doubled down. And tripled down. Whilst explicitly denying people’s identities.
He was coming from a hostile place, and refused to leave it, even when it was explained to him.
The fact that you’re equating the creation of protective rules in explicitly safe spaces as being morally identical to gatekeeping other folks identities makes me doubt your intentions. If you genuinely believe they’re the same thing, you’ve got a lot of work to do. And if you don’t believe they’re the same thing, but are comparing them to win an internet discussion, then you’re the one stirring up drama…
Okey dokey.
This is what I was talking about: You’re taking the role of a teacher talking to a thick or disobedient student, instead of just us having a conversation. I do take that tone too sometimes, but usually it’s when I’m being sarcastic or jerky about something on purpose. It’s not actually how I look at my role vs. the other person in the conversation. This is like I said why I think the “privileged user who tells other users what to do” role is a toxic thing that Lemmy creates for certain people in the interactions.
I feel like I explained pretty clearly what in my opinion the issue is, and you’re just reiterating your favored definitions for all of these words (ignoring anything I had to say about the validity) and again how things really operate… which, okay. I feel like there’s not a lot of point in going back and forth about it, you can just read again the message you just replied to, if you want my answer about this stuff.
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.
Drag, as in someone who is also banned from Blahaj? 🤨
Yeah, they finally got tired of his trolling and banned him on a technicality
(The trolling isn’t and never was the neopronouns)
I agree. And, for that matter, not only did I always make a serious effort to use Drag’s pronouns, but I never actually had a problem with Drag. I accept from the stories I’ve heard that Drag was probably a troll, but all of this nonsense about me having some grudge against Drag or something are… bizarre. I think I had one fight with Drag long after I left Blahaj, admittedly I don’t remember what about.
There’s more than that https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/49571446/20253309
That seems unrelated to the Blahaj comment?
Yeah, I was mostly just referring to the bit about being banned from Blahaj. Shoulda made that clear
Even on that, he was involved in the 196 forced migration attempt
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/35965565?scrollToComments=true
Again, my only involvement was that after the attempted move, long after I had stopped using Blahaj precisely because my opinions were not welcome on the instance, I started posting on 196 on .world.
Ah. I block most of the meme comms, so that pretty much passed me by entirely.
They do try to gatekeep gender in other ways though.
You shouldn’t judge a user by the length of their modlog.
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.
You’ve perma-banned me from 11 communities on blahaj.zone for ‘Racism/Bigotry’. Care to point out which posts or comments of mine caused you to activate the banhammer?
Probably this and they missed the sarcasm.
I don’t want to speculate. I want to see what they have to say.
Speak for yourself. I’ve got no love for AI-bros.
We’ve got no love for your instance either. A cesspit of liberal bullshit and zio nonsense.
Both of your instances don’t even end on .nl *shakes head*
Finally. Something we can all agree on.
I’m not sure which of the two previous comments was the worst generalization or shit take I’ve seen in a while. It’s pretty ridiculous all these people that reflexively get bent out of shape around anything regarding llms or generative models. Especially considering anarchists explicitly don’t support the wealthy bourgeoisie using it to displace workers and regular people. They are just tools and can be used for good or bad.
But implying that .world is a haven for liberal zionists. Is an equally bad take. Easily disproven by just spending a few minutes there. I think anyone making this sort of accusation is probably more likely to be the problem they accuse others of.
Either way. Both are problematic and emblematic of talking past each other and not to each other. Which isn’t damning, all of us have the capability to do it. Just discouraging how frequently we all do it.
.world and most of the fediverse is generally a political leftist safe-space. Anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous. Go on the front page and youll see a constant stream of muh capitalism-bad, every other meme has to be about gay/trans/neopronoun stuff or a poorly veiled political commentary (often both), endless doomerism about the environment, class system and social justice imbalances. If you dare to ever point this out you’ll get hit with the ol’ “EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL HAHA WANNA CRY ABOUT IT SNOWFLAKE GO SOMEWHERE ELSE” deflection theyre probably used to being on the recieving end of.
It screams 'Social media for liberal arts students in their 20s-30s Who decided the best use of their time, financial investment, and education potential was to be formally taught drawing in-between political lessons teaching ‘straight white men bad and need to be opressed since you cant oppress the oppressor’, think they have all the solutions to societies problems because they read a book on economic theory and restorative justice for minorities theory that semester.
AI tech bros generally have no respect for the humanities or art as a creative process. Theres a non-zero amount of ai-bros who get off on the fact that artist aren’t going to be the last to be outsourced to automation like they think they were, and the work artist create arent untouchable products of creativity (that tech bros happen to not posess and thus are envious of/ dont respect as valuable). Theres a kind of art and creativity in AI with frontier researchers contributing beautiful proofs stitching together new frameworks from classical literature that are too nerdy and formal for artist to appreciate. Engineers and buisiness people see dollar signs and cost calculations, crunch the numbers, and decide its cheaper to use stable diffusion to boilerplate graphical design than hire an artist. The fact some people go out of their way to brag and rub it in artist faces while stealing their work to have a trained model copy their approximate style/likeness with none of the soul that human touch adds. Yeah its easy to understand why the liberal arts crowd and the AI crowd have some bad blood.
The artist are rightfully insulted and existentially threatened, the AI community is at best indifferent and at worst maliciously gleeful about it. The current copyright system is too outdated to appropriately protect their creative works and even if it were’t the megacorps like facebook, non-copyright respecting foreign countries, and usual internet pirates wouldn’t give a fuck anyways. The only silver lining is artist are historically gatekeepy smug pricks with emotional complexes so maybe a bit of ego shattering and reality checks could do them some good. Still, I’d rather see society respect their works as a right even if they are obnoxious assholes.
Until this tension relieves I don’t see the two sides making ammends.
Wth is going on with the db0 instance? Db0 the guy seems very chill and understanding, at least in the posts I’ve seen.
Db0 is still very chill and understanding. Seems like the person reported here is having a hard time recently
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/49556709/20248126
That has not been my experience at all
That’s because you’re an slopper constantly trolling in our comms.
Not sure what a “slopper” is. Is that when people make note of sloppy grammar?
This is what you have chosen to believe and regurgitate in spite of a lack of any real evidence or basic reasoning.
How could I be “constantly trolling in [your] comms” having blocked the instance months ago? Your whole claim immediately falls apart as soon as you apply any logic.
A while back I had made a few complaints about AI slop in dbzer0 not knowing about the secret hidden rule of that instance that you cannot make any reasonable complaints about AI or else you will get targeted and swarmed by frothing users and power-tripping admins/mods. Then, absolutely wild claims and accusations, at the conspiracy-theory level, were made by, and/or supported by, dbzer0 users/mods/admins and any cult-like followers of the such with a complete disregard for even simple logic, like Occam’s Razor. After some failed attempts to defend myself with reasoning from those insane claims and accusations, while admins participated or supported the mob, I had blocked the instance. Since then, I still get dbzer0 cult people following me around and harassing me with the same baseless claims you’re flinging at me now.
db0 did absolutely nothing but help support the mob-behavior,. They even supported the dbzer0 brigade of fuck_AI by showing up themself and acting like a typical politician making false claims and conveniently ignoring points in order to spin the narrative to support the aforementioned behavior.
So, yeah. I’m not a fan of db0 or the entire instance, thanks to shitty behavior like you’re showing here.
Slopper are assholes who go around hijacking comment threads to tell everyone about what they think of genAI “slop”. So I think you fit the description just fine.
Let’s analyze this encounter here to show how you and your like really like to act.
Based on this alone, you have already established that you are the asshole here.
But let’s take a little walk down this road a bit and analyze this further.
Your whole position is that you are allowed to be a childish asshole to me because I make comments about my frustration with AI slop. First, it’s really only occasionally when I make a few comments here and there about AI slop, and many times it’s literally because the AI slop has been posted in a community that explicitly forbids it — I’m such an asshole for that! But, let’s assume my intention is to be annoying about it and bother people by basically saying “ugh more AI slop”, is that really a good reason to act like you have been here, let alone fucking everywhere I go where you seem to not stop harassing me about having a fucking different opinion than you?
The simple fact is: I just don’t like AI the same way you and other people do and it can be very frustrating at times. There is not some sort of shadow cabal with the sole purpose of following around AI users and working together to mob and brigade AI communities. That’s much closer to what you and many dbzer0 users are actually doing(examples: [1], [2], I had more easy links but I can’t link to them due to being deleted because a user was banned or the mods removed them). The claims of brigades is literally just because of a coincidence due to the fact there are a significant amount of people who are frustrated by AI. That’s the simplest and most straightforward explanation that you and others are conveniently ignoring.
Additionally, there are plenty of valid and reasonable reasons to have issues with AI, to list only some of them:
And yet, you think it’s okay to go around acting like a wad of rotting dick cheese to people because they don’t agree with your perspective on AI because “omg people won’t stop saying they don’t like AI!”. Come-fucking-on.
I’m so fucking tired of you and the other dbzer0 nutbags.
Because you start shit and don’t like consequences.
Oof.
That’s legit. The UN report clearly found that people from the Hamas side of the fighting had committed widespread sexual assaults. Bringing up misleading talking points and blog posts to try to spin it around into the report finding the opposite is textbook misinformation.
I actually don’t agree with banning people for this type of misinformation, I think arguing back in kind is the right way in most cases. But if you’re going to ban misinformation (which most of Lemmy seems to think is okay), then this is a pretty reasonable ban.
(It’s probably offtopic to get into an extended argument about the original Hamas sexual assault claims under this post… if anyone wants to re-inaugurate my whole “debatebro” community by having it out with me there about it though let me know and I’m down a little later today.)
Not really. Db0 constantly bans folk for extremely petty and inconsistent reasons, especially if they dare to express political views he doesn’t like.
I’ve never had a problem with that user either.
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.
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/35965565?scrollToComments=true
I love your username by the way.
hmm now I’m curious
>checks
AHAHAHAHA no. Funny, but no. I have that dude blocked, I can’t remember exactly why but I’ve had him blocked for at least a year and I remember his username and him being a twat, I just don’t care enough to go looking up how he was a twat.
Can I do that too? I mean, I have enough respect for the people reading my stuff to explain why I think things so they can think it over, see if it makes sense, I mean they’re free to agree or disagree but I guess I was wasting my time with that when AHAHAHAHAHA means obviously I’m right and the other person is wrong…
Okay. Who are you? Why do I take your opinion about him seriously just because you say it and actively refuse to give any reason?
The same could be said of you. Why should anyone take the former admin of a presumably failed single-person instance seriously?
Lol
Because I explain the reasons for what I think, and then people can decide for themselves whether it makes sense. I don’t really have to be anybody (and, indeed, I am not) for it to sway people.
There’s a whole other contingent that likes to fall back on “but I am (this identity)!” or “well I’m the moderator of (wherever)” to justify their stuff. Or, like this person, just AHAHAHAHAHA instead of reasons. I like my way better.
You can have whatever opinion about the guy you want, I was just offering that I’ve had personal experience with someone you classify as “the most helpful and drama-free” being anything but, and if he got banned he probably deserved it. I’m very sorry I don’t feel like digging through every comment I’ve/he’s ever written to go and remember exactly why I think he’s an obnoxious dickhead, all I can remember is that I’ve interacted with him, and he was enough of an obnoxious dickhead to justify blocking him. You’re welcome to go do so if you don’t believe me.
Yeah what was I thinking looking up his modlog, quoting some of the stuff that got him banned, and weighing in on it and specifically why. I should have just said I liked him, and “if he got banned, he probably didn’t deserve it” all confident-like, and called it a day. It’s easier, too.
no, next time just don’t
suck him offmake sweeping claims of someone’s impeccable character unless you’re prepared for someone else who’s had personal experience to the contrary to pipe up. That’d be good enough.if that’s too much of an ask I can always just block you as well, though, I genuinely don’t care. Out of sight, out of mind.
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
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.
I mean, db0 previously banned me from a comm for being a ‘turbolib’ because I argued for harm reduction on anarchist grounds.