this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2024
79 points (85.6% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

315 readers
7 users here now

This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.

Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.

Rules

Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.

Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.


Some acronyms you might see.


Relevant comms

founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
 
  1. Mod of !anarchism@slrpnk.net posts a great Greta Thunberg quote, but then tries to use it to justify not voting in the upcoming US election
  2. Multiple people point out that’s very clearly not what she meant
  3. Removed by mod Removed by mod Removed by mod Removed by mod

Using your mod powers to decide who is allowed and not allowed to speak is not very anarchist of you, @mambabasa@slrpnk.net

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lemonmelon@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Yeah, no. Pointing out that a quote does not support the point of view that someone is trying to use it to support is tacitly not equivalent to "going to an anarchist space to spout anti-anarchist viewpoints." Your other examples are insufficient analogies, and I hope you can see that.

If your hypothetical vegan space had a moderator who posted a quote of Lynda Carter saying "I try to avoid cheese, dairy, and a lot of meat, but I do like them," and attempted to interpret that as "Wonder Woman advocates veganism," it's perfectly valid to call out the absence of that sentiment in the source quote. Removing such responses, especially on one's own post, reeks of a petty reaction to criticism.

While I typically find value in your opinions, including the ones I don't agree with, I'm having trouble mustering respect for this one.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

From what I see, Greta was sufficiently vague on this either way. In that case, going to an anarchist space to argue for electoralism using this vagueness as a starting point seems to be sufficient reason for removal. The removed comment from the OP was not even correcting people misrepresenting Greta's words, it was about starting an argument with someone suggesting 3rd parties (a support which I think also doesn't belong in an anarchist space, but whatever) with the usual 2-party electoralist talking points

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You can read the text of my comments here, or in the modlog:

https://ponder.cat/comment/791878

There were two that were reinforcing Greta Thunberg's words, which were in no way vague, and then one that could be interpreted as "electoralism."

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Not gonna argue with you, mate. I'm just clearing out that you did not go there to correct misinformation as the person I was replying to made an analogy with, but to argue against 3rd parties and for electoralism in general.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 5 points 3 weeks ago

You're welcome to your interpretation. In my opinion I went there to protect the space against someone who mainly wants to use it to talk about Kamala Harris and the Democrats, and is wearing a fairly unconvincing anarchist disguise and couching their message in terms of "not voting at all" without bothering to disguise it all that much.