https://sh.itjust.works/post/31716642
Edit: There used to be a screenshot here. I messed up the link in an edit and don’t have a local copy saved.
My comment was roughly 'It already looks like it might be better than things now, at least Biden never advocated for full displacement of all Palestine."
I had already seen half the comment section of the post with ban marks. This single comment copped me a fully-expected permaban. Unfortunately my comment doesn’t show up in modlogs so I had to retype it more or less from memory.
The bloodshed:
Screenshot edited as per mod request.
Most of the banned comments are actually still visible. If you browse the thread you’ll notice there’s nothing particularly inflammatory or banworthy about any of them.
Best part, in the middle of all that banning, our buddy found the time to mod the one guy in that post who supported his opinions. Welp, another echo chamber in the making.
Follow up:
The mod posted in a similar post in this comm. FWIW, while I stand by my actions and opinion, I did msg them to offer them a personal apology.
YDI man. I’m normally Johnny on the spot for all kinds of Biden Gaza argumentation but this is different.
Imagine if your mom just died. Imagine if Trump did it, maybe it was during the fucked up Covid response and he deliberately broke up your public health office and seized all the masks and she couldn’t get what she needed, and now she’s gone, gone forever.
Now imagine someone in a MAGA hat is trying to talk to you about how Covid is fake, and won’t shut up about it. How much do you want to debate them about it? Would you welcome them into your space so they can do their thing?
That’s what you’re doing, going to a Palestinian community and shooting off about how fucked they are now, under Trump, “whooooo boy.” I actually agree with the point you’re making here, factually. And the inclusion of Biden in the original post was unnecessary, and this poster sure does a lot of that. But you can’t come into someone’s community that is directly dealing with such a sensitive topic and start shooting from the hip about US politics and how important it is, being careless and mean about it, even if they started it by talking about Biden.
I’ve had friends from near that part of the world. They don’t give a shit who’s president. They don’t want to hear about someone in US politics who did something good. The US is a source of sanctions and drone strikes and unlimited weapons for Nazis, and that’s pretty much it. Someone who’s in charge of the US is their enemy. That’s all. We’re the Empire from Star Wars, and we keep blowing up Alderaan. New emperor? Okay, whatever. How good is this one going to be? You must be joking to ask that question.
My feeling on Biden-hating Palestinians changed during the “uncommitted” time and how it extended past the primary. I thought that was pretty short-sighted, for reasons that will be obvious to you, and then I saw a picture of an event and saw Rashida Tlaib and the look on her face during the event. Just the expression was enough. Okay, I got it, you have rights to do what you’re doing, lady. I don’t agree with you, I’m not joining up with you, but I won’t try to tell you you’re wrong when all you’re doing is fighting to save your life and your people. You kind of don’t give a shit if Trump comes to power and blows up the US. “Okay, well, our country’s getting blown up and no one cares, so sure, sounds good.”
Like I say, that’s not my point of view, at all, not least of which because Trump is going to blow up plenty of stuff outside the US including Palestine. I definitely think there were skilled people who latched on to that movement and tried to use it to hurt Democrats as a US political tool, too. I’m just saying that in a Palestinian-specific community you can’t really use the same rules and level and style of debate about it that you would in a US politics community.
I’m just saying it’s different when someone is fighting to save their life. You can even make the same point you tried to make. But you have to be kind. You have to be at least a little bit sympathetic. You probably still would have been banned for it, in which case it’s a lot closer to PTB, but as it is, it looks to me like you and the other commenters were unkind enough that YDI regardless of anything else.
This is like a super well written version of what I was trying to explain. Glad to see someone was able to put words to it! Thx 😊
Hey, thank you, yeah I almost replied onto your comment but I decided it was better to make a new one. But yeah I completely agree with you. It’s just different.
Hey! I love your arguments, they’re always really well reasoned and laid out.
I agree fully with your logic, emotional people are hurting and not going to make the best calls. I get that. The problem is, when an interaction exists only online, with no way that participants can know each other IRL. What is to prevent just about anybody who is acting in bad faith from hiding behind that emotion as a shield to justify all kinds of bad behaviour? Using this logic online means surrendering to any such party with bad intentions looking to benefit, such as the groups you mentioned in the following quote.
I definitely think there were skilled people who latched on to that movement and tried to use it to hurt Democrats as a US political tool, too
I don’t think there’s any real conflict between how we are seeing things, only in the way we are choosing to respond to them. You’re saying (I think) that we should give the bad actors free rein because to do otherwise would be to further hurt the ones who are already hurting. I think that to allow them to do whatever they want with impunity by allowing them to hide behind the victims is unacceptable, not least because it’s going to lead to even more victims in the long run.
Pinging @[email protected] since I think you’d be interested in continuing to follow this discussion.
What is to prevent just about anybody who is acting in bad faith from hiding behind that emotion as a shield to justify all kinds of bad behaviour? Using this logic online means surrendering to any such party with bad intentions looking to benefit, such as the groups you mentioned in the following quote.
Yeah, that is absolutely a concern. You raise an excellent point. I’m just saying that you have to give the benefit of the doubt.
I actually want to show you an example of me arguing with someone that’s a good example of that situation. She’s criticizing Biden for reasons I think are kind of nuts, and brings up that she’s queer, and then when she gets emotional about her argument it makes it hard for me to disagree because through some alchemy I’m going to look prejudiced if I try to tell her how wrong she is.
Is it possible she’s an anti-Biden troll who’s hiding behind a queer identity? Sure. But you have to give the benefit of the doubt and assume she’s legit. That doesn’t mean you can’t disagree with her, you just have to do it within some parameters. I’m just saying that someone who’s claiming to be representing Palestine, you have to give some massive, massive leeway. You can disagree factually while still respecting where they’re coming from, or claiming to be coming from. Is it fair that it gives an advantage to the propaganda accounts? Not really. But that’s the nature of the beast.
I am often accused of defaulting to accusations of someone being a Russian bot or something the instant they criticize Biden, but I do not at all, and I definitely don’t recommend doing that. I’ll make the accusation maybe once every 1-2 months if someone’s being so laughably obvious that I think it’s way beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe I shouldn’t even do that, just as a blanket rule. I have more to say on that, but I want to think it over more. But anyway, at a minimum in almost all cases, I think taking people to be who they claim to be is the way you have to do it. And definitely more so when sensitive subjects are involved.
So, I actually can’t link you to the example, for some ironic reasons, so I’ll cut and paste. Leaving aside the part where I fucked it up and got overly person with her, which I definitely don’t think I should have done, this is the good part of what I said, when this vulnerable person (according to her self report) was all upset about how the Democrats fucked up their policies and messaging and so lost the election and so now she’s in danger under Trump:
I still think it would have been more productive for you to support the tiny number of sensible people in Washington, Sanders and friends, and try to give them enough power to withstand the great fuckening that the DNC is trying to give them. Or advocate for reforms like RCV that would give third parties some traction. Or just advocate for local justice and protest to make some progress how you can. I’m not saying you are not doing any of those things, but the only thing you have engaged me on so far is trying to make the argument that voting for the Democrats is a waste of time.
Let me put it this way: I don’t disagree with you about complicity by the Democrats in this whole death-cult of a government. If the car is sliding towards the cliff, and the controls that are supposed to stop it aren’t doing what they’re supposed to, that is not a good argument for completely abandoning the attempt to control the car. You vocally oppose the Democrats, and then are somehow blaming me when the non-Democrat who actively wants to endanger your safety comes to power instead of the person who merely wasn’t doing enough to stop it. You already can’t get a passport. If conditions in the US get actively urgently dangerous to your safety in the next four years, which they seem likely to, then it sounds to me like you have your own actions to blame more so than mine or other people who voted for Harris while also advocating for better than the Democrats.
So I get to make the point, and it works whether she’s legit about who she claims to be, or not. If I just came in and made fun of her for being in danger now, that’s fucked up. I did that a little bit, after, mostly borne out of genuine anger and bitterness because now I know some people who are definitely in real physical danger because of Trump, and so if she helped that happen, it’s pretty fucking hard for me to stay even keeled about it. But the point is, I think engaging with people on the merits is almost always right, even if the result is sometimes unfair.
Thanks, you make some good points. There’s certainly room for improvement. In this case I wasn’t making fun of anybody, but I agree I could have sugar coated it a bit more.
Yeah, agreed. It’s a hard thing to do without seeming like you’re kicking someone who’s in danger when they’re down. Ask me how I know.
Story time? What’s your experience on the other side?
Oh, no, I was just saying that it still stung me a bit feeling like, with the poster I was talking about, I had been mean to her afterwards while trying to make a point, in a way that was un called for.
yeah thanks for your thoughts i just haven’t seen any evidence of bad actorship. as soon as i see any legitimate harm come about in this community, whether from the mod or otherwise, i will change my tune though promise.
Actual bad actors are unlikely to leave any evidence of their identity. Not slipping up and admitting on a public forum that you’re acting in bad faith is basic competency, unless you’re an AI chatbot.
so you see how you are advocating for your own obviously disruptive behavior based on the unproven possibility of bad actors being afoot, right?
they should def keep you banned, sorry man. what you are doing is called shadow boxing; there isn’t any evidence that the “problem” you are fighting even exists in this case, meanwhile you claim the right to derail conversations over it. i wouldn’t want you in my community either.
My discussion so far has been about hypotheticals. My actual comment was limited to a single statement correcting them when they said trump would be better. In a very mild, nonoffensive manner. If you decide that’s worth banning for, you do you.
Your own (accurate) words:
“Thanks, you make some good points. There’s certainly room for improvement. In this case, I wasn’t making fun of anybody, but I agree I could have sugar-coated it a bit more.”
This is exactly what I mean—if you recognize room for improvement, acting on that is key.
As for your hypotheticals, yes, I understand they’re just ideas. The issue is when those hypotheticals lead to behaviors that derail conversations or disrupt the community. That’s where the problem arises—it’s not about whether bad actors might exist, but about avoiding actions that create unnecessary friction or suspicion in the absence of evidence.
If you’re mindful of this going forward, I think you’ll have a much better chance of staying unbanned and contributing constructively.
Edit: In response to a private message I sent. The mod apologized, and unbanned me. (Lets just say that from his response, the point that the previous poster is making and in part I make below - that people are almost gloating with “see what not voting Democrat made happen” - probably matches very well how people are being perceived by that mod).
Original text of my post:
That specific Mod is going way beyond merelly stopping people coming over there to almost gloat that “you’re screwed and it’s all your fault”: I just got banned even though I mostly agree with their criticism of Democrats and the Biden Administration (In summary: had the DNC listenned to anti-Genocide voters, Trump would’ve lost, IMHO, so don’t blame voters for not being able to hold their noses to vote for the lesser of Genociders when the DNC knowingly chose to keep on supporting Genocide against both Principle and their own chances at defeating Trump), but some guy was being all racist about it (claiming it’s all a “Westerners” thing) and I challenged just that, very explicitly and ended up banned.
I would like to think that people who are against Racism as a matter of Principle are naturally against Zionism (an extreme Racist ideology), the Israeli Occupation and even more against the Israeli Genocide, just as they are against all manner of prejudiced takes, so for that Mod to side with a Racist and silence somebody calling that person out in their Racism is something else than “merelly” fighting back against people going to a forum about Palestine to try to score political points in the American political environment using the mass murder of Palestinians.
had the DNC listenned to anti-Genocide voters, Trump would’ve lost, IMHO
fwiw I find this argument very hard to square with the actual voting records. In 4 of the 7 swing states people were focused on, Harris actually received more votes than Biden. And even in those last 3, Trump’s vote against Harris increased by a larger amount than Harris’s vote, compared to Biden. The myth that people sat it out or voted third party because of Biden/Harris’s pro-genocide stance (and to be clear: it was a pro-genocide stance—anyone who questions that is not worth listening to) is a convenient story that allows the left and liberals an excuse to keep yelling at each other, but it doesn’t look believable with the data.
You don’t need to bring up Trump anytime someone rightfully condemns Biden for his complicity in Israel’s genocide. I respond to these comments a lot and it’s, frankly, exhausting. I’m picking those fights and * still* sometimes feel like I want to punch the guy behind the keyboard. I couldn’t imagine modding a community where it’s them coming to me, and I can absolutely understand being heavy handed with moderation because, as I said, it’s fucking exhausting seeing a hundred different smartasses trying to make a leopards eating faces style point while also being massively hypocritical about it. And I’m not even Palestinian; if I was I’d also hate you for defending my mother/father/etc’s killer. YDI. That screenshotful of bans? Relatable as fuck. I accept it because again, I’m the one getting into these arguments; I’m entering these people’s backyards, but I’d totally ban them if they brought that shit into my backyard.
BTW to respond to your original comment Biden tried to do basically the same thing in the middle of the war (it was Gaza rather than all of Palestine, but Trump’s statement was also about Gaza). He only failed because Sisi adamantly refused. Biden has no moral high ground here.
+1 to the “bringing it to their backyard” analogy
i went to look at the original post (that comm doesn’t federate to my instance for some reason) and WOW is it bad. comments saying “i guess ur heil maga” and shit under a post rightfully criticizing the racist former president. and there’s so many! it’s more than half! i also would initiate a crackdown and i wouldn’t feel bad at all if i also got a few well intentioned folk like OP.
people need to understand that people died and are dying. c/palestine is not the space for team sports. there’s a place for that and it’s definitely not this one.
Edit: In response to a private message I sent. The mod apologized, and unbanned me. I’m leaving up what I wrote since, well, I did wrote it and I’m not going to pretend I didn’t.
Original text of my post:
I just got banned from there for 3 days because I pointed out a guy was being a Racist by going on and on about how “Westerners” this and “Westerners” that (i.e. being prejudiced about everybody born in a certain area), even though I very explictly agreed with most of his points on the quality of the points themselves and generally agree that what the Biden administration did and what Israel has been doing is unnacceptable.
Same mod doing the banning as you see above. I’m genuinelly wondering if this mod account hasn’t been hacked and is now being run from Tel Aviv since it’s a far smarter Psy Ops strategy upon capturing such an account to start antagonizing neutrals and even supporters of the Palestinian cause than to merelly close the forum (since a new similar forum would quickly be openned elsewhere) - it makes sense for a Counter-Propaganda op to poison the well.
You went to a Palestine community, sure someone critising westerners for not treating Palestinians as human, and went on a deranged rant about reversed rascism.
“Western” is just a euphemism for white supremacy and “westerner” is just a euphemism for pale skin.
Are you suggesting this person was doing “reverse racism” against YTs? B/c reverse racism is just a fascist fantasy. That’s the real r/conservative. I would ban that nonsense too.
“Western” is just a euphemism for white supremacy and “westerner” is just a euphemism for pale skin.
You’re sailing very close to the shores of tankie-land with this campist statement.
well no matter how divisive this comment section may get we can all at least agree you made the least correct one so good job XD
Making generalized statements about ideas held and behaviours on all people born in a certain geographical location or with certain skin color is Racial Prejudice because it’s anchored on the idea that people born in a certain area or with the genes to express a certain skin color “Are all the same”, which is pure Prejudice (you’re presuming belifs and actions for a large number of individual human beings based on how they look and were the were born, both things they were born with and thus not of their choice and none of which things that they actually chose and did)
Racism is equally Racism for all geographical locations or skin colors being targetted and only a Racist would think that it’s less bad to target some skin colors or geographical locations than others.
That’s exactly what they did
Ugh. Now, of all times, we should be banding together. Instead, we are all turned against each other, at each others’ throats because of petty purity tests.
Divide and conquer, the technique that works so well that British create their empire with it. Single issue voter is so susceptible to it they might as well be the pawn of the powerful.
I realise that Americans don’t actually think that Palestine is a real place and Palestinians are real people, but I promise you, to them, their genocide is not a “petty purity test”
Indeed. Extremists don’t even realise when they’re alienating others who are actually on their side. Useful idiots indeed.
If being banned from a Lemmy community made you support genocide, you were already a fascist.
Please replace the screenshot with the deobfuscated mod names with the normal modlog where the mod names are not visible.
Done. Although it’s something of a moot point in this case.
Also, I didn’t actually deobfuscate anything, it’s just standard behaviour on the Tesseract UI.
db0, what do you think about a “standard format” for this community? e.g. including the modlog with reasoning as the main thumbnail, and then including the banned content in the post body before any explanation.
sort of spitballing but some of these text posts get so impossible to read haha.
I quite like the idea of a standard format. It might help to communicate the intent of the community better since that was a problem recently.
Something like:
- Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
- What sanction did they impose? (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)
- Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction. (e.g. the post that was removed, or got you banned)
- Provide a screenshot of the modlog entry (don’t deobfuscate mod names)
- Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be resolved
Maybe?
ye im a bit sick and too feverish to think it all thru but basically just hone in the already existing rules in the sidebar to ensure post quality, also would help weed out low effort angry people
Acknowledging reality when it doesn’t hurt THE DEMONRATS is forbidden. /s
PTB
The most frustrating part of getting banned from there is that having echo chambers like that decreases the likelihood that new Lemmy users will stick around.
Palestinians have my full sympathy and the Israeli government my full ire, with the past year’s bloodshed demonstrating that an independent Palestine being necessary and long overdue if there’s to be any chance of a long term peace.
My problem with the moderator’s comments was twofold. First, they themselves are demonstrating an extremist position in suggesting that terrorism committed in retribution to Israel’s war crimes is in any way acceptable. While I can sympathize with there being few other meaningful options available when Israel has the US as an ally, any hope of meaningful political support for the Palestinian cause—something will only degrade further under Trump—is lost if Israel is no longer seen as the aggressor. Resistance is one thing, terrorism is another.
Secondly, setting the goalposts of success as being the proclamation of a ceasefire was meaningless, given that they now have Trump’s support to gradually expel the remaining Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank and establish additional Israeli settlements. Like him or not, Biden was at the very least against that, something that means a lot more in terms of the long term ability for Palestinians to remain in Palestine.
Having been banned, I can’t interact with any posts on there now unfortunately, so just added it to my block list. More importantly, however, the more echo chambers that people establish on Lemmy, the harder it’ll be to attract new users to the platform.
Military force is the primary limiting factor against Israel, not international sympathy. This election has demonstrated the limitations of that sympathy, because at least in the US, the electoral system completely disregards popular support on this issue. How exactly do you envision international sympathy manifesting into significant material change?
the electoral system completely disregards popular support on this issue
Sadly, it does not. In this instance.
The problem is not that Americans are unable to vote for what they want, although give it a few years and that may be an issue, too. The issue is that what they want is support for Israel. It’s in the media and mass understanding of the world aspect. I doubt you could talk to 10 random Americans and find a single one who’s aware of what is happening in Gaza in reality, or that it’s a holocaust. Probably the most you would get is that “there’s a war” and general support for either Israel or awareness of the suffering of Palestinians in general.
Personally, I’m quite surprised that the “Palestine” line is that high. But bottom line, about 80% of people in the US don’t even see the Palestinians as the more sympathetic party, let alone are really aware of the horror that’s going on there.
If you have a different poll I’m open to look. I found this one in Newsweek which definitely isn’t a stellar source, but it is citing a pretty reliable poll, and the central question sounds unbiasedly phrased instead of focusing on a more useless question like “Do you support a ceasefire?”
https://www.newsweek.com/american-opinions-israel-change-year-after-october-seven-1964801
Your poll clearly shows that only a minority of people are more sympathetic to Israel, yet both candidates offered complete support to Israel. How does, “I’m about equally sympathetic to both sides,” translate to, “I think we should give billions of dollars of military equipment to one side?” And I wouldn’t be surprised if even some of the “more sympathetic towards Israelis” people still want to be less involved in the conflict, after all, it’s not as if all the “more sympathetic towards Palestinians” people want the government to arm Hamas.
Your poll clearly shows that only a minority of people are more sympathetic to Israel, yet both candidates offered complete support to Israel.
Because in a 2 party voting system, politicos generally take whichever side of an issue will (they believe) net them the most votes. Whether their choice did actually net them the most votes is another question entirely.
How does, “I’m about equally sympathetic to both sides,” translate to, “I think we should give billions of dollars of military equipment to one side?”
It translates to “I can understand and live with whatever decisions the politicos make”. Which then leads the politicos to consider the previous point, of ‘which side will probably net me the most votes?’.
“I can understand and live with whatever decisions the politicos make”.
You’re just making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. There’s no basis for that extrapolation.
Remember, the poll didn’t ask anything about whether or not we should be involved in the conflict at all. That means everyone who opposed involvement had to choose one of the three options listed - even isolationists. It’s very fair to say that not everyone who supports isolationism is going to be more sympathetic towards Palestine, in fact, it’s reasonable to say that many of them wouldn’t pay much attention to foreign affairs at all (as in, they care that public funds are going to foreign conflicts but not about the details of those conflicts), and thus might give either the neutral response or the response that they’ve passively absorbed through the media. In the same way, there are probably plenty on isolationists who are more sympathetic to Ukraine than to Russia, and yet still don’t think we should be involved.
When asked about military aid to Israel, opinions are split, roughly 50-50:
The half that were opposed had no candidate courting them whatsoever and therefore had more potential to win over, and there are enough of them to be competitive. Instead, the Democrats went chasing after the pro-Israel voters who already had a candidate offering them everything they could dream of. It’s the same story every time the Democrats run right on any issue to try to appeal to “moderate Republicans,” it never works. In fact, there were 34% of Republicans who weren’t happy about military aid to Israel, and if they wanted to appeal to dissatisfied Republicans, those could’ve been a prime target.
Because in a
2 party voting systemracist genocidal empireTwo things can be true.
Wow, who would have thought that a Palestine community wouldn’t like genocide apologia (and celebration) for their own genocide.
YDI, but for very specific reasons and I understand your perspective.
In a vacuum, your comments are 100% fine, OP. However, in the context of those communities, comments like yours dominate the discussion and drown out other perspectives. It’s exhausting and disrespectful to constantly redirect conversations about significant figures involved in tragic events—like the murder of family and friends—back to team sports-style politics.
Let people express their anger at Biden. You’re not addressing the harm he’s done by derailing critical conversations about him. If you want to criticize Netanyahu or Trump, make your own original posts. (If those posts also get banned, I’ll gladly revisit my position.)
It’s exhausting and disrespectful to constantly redirect conversations about significant figures involved in tragic events—like the murder of family and friends—back to team sports-style politics.
I should point out that the title of the post is “Flattening Gaza is one of Biden’s accomplishments”. You can hardly write a title like that and expect politics to not get involved. Is there even any discussion to be had that’s NOT team sports-style politics?
Yes actually, Palestinians are allowed to be angry about Biden levelling their country without having to care about US sportsteam politics
It is trivial to to allow for anger against both parties while simultaneously conceding that there are different qualities of culpability involved.
Put another way—and I don’t mean to be flippant I am just communicating the emotional substrate you chose to engage with here, you did this meme:
Again, you are 100% in the right. But you are making these comments in a way that minimizes another 100% valid conversation that people need to have.
If you’ll read those comments, including mine, nobody was actually defending Biden. They were mostly pointing out that Trump is about to (and already) making things worse.
But you are making these comments in a way that minimizes another 100% valid conversation that people need to have.
What exactly is the valid conversation that needs having? The mod had also expressed that no other parties, not even Netanyahu or the IDF, carry more blame than Biden. You’re essentially saying that we should ignore all disinformation because some people are upset. Seems like a pretty good excuse for any troll or bad actor to hide behind, TBH.
They were mostly pointing out that Trump is about to (and already) making things worse.
…In a very dehumanizing and dismissive way. Again, create your own post next time. See how it goes. If anyone actually gets banned for posting about Netanyahu or Trump being culpable, I will take everything back. Given the evidence I have, however, it really just looks like there was a dogpile of people derailing the conversation from rightly criticizing someone who absolutely has blood on his hands.
The mod had also expressed that no other parties, not even Netanyahu or the IDF, carry more blame than Biden.
Could you quote this? I believe you just want to see the original text. If there is actual disinformation I will take everything back for sure.
Want to know something funny? The mod has expressed the exact same opinion themselves. That they’re now banning others saying the exact same thing they did is purely emotional. Any opinion that doesn’t 100% align with how they feel on a particular day is a bannable offense.
Screenshot 1
I see resin85 accusing the mod of what you are describing, but the mod’s response appears to reflect a fair personal opinion that doesn’t align with your accusations.
Screenshot 2
The mod’s statement is balanced and reasonable. It doesn’t support your claim that “The mod had also expressed that no other parties, not even Netanyahu or the IDF, carry more blame than Biden.” The mod is simply pointing out that Biden isn’t blameless, which is not the same thing.
At this point, my YDI judgment still stands unless further evidence is provided. It seems like this community might not be the right fit for you.
Screenshot 2 was pointing out that the mod has said the exact same thing he’s banning others for, not about Netanyahu et al.
Screenshot 1 doesn’t make it clear enough that he’s blaming Biden as the primary party over everyone else involved in the debacle? I have an autistic streak and even I can tell that much.
At this point, my YDI judgment still stands unless further evidence is provided.
That’s fine. You’ve apparently decided it’s right for them to be an echo chamber because they’re emotional, and anybody who disagrees deserves to be kicked out. I’m not sure how that logic can’t be extended to pretty much every PTB in existence, but ok. My goal here wasn’t asking for judgement, but just drawing attention to the nonsense that’s happening over there.
Wait, you can see which moderator did something?
Ah. Yes, apparently that’s the default on Tesseract.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I assume everyone on .ee is a conservative now.
Why? It’s just one PTB in a tiny comm. No reason to think the rest of the server is that way
Opposition to the genocide is a conservative stance in America?
They allow /conservative to exist so, I don’t see a real opposition to much.
Well if opposition to the Palestinian genocide is a conservative position, then good for them for being conservative I guess
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
That’s a pretty big leap to take for one of the largest instances
Is there a chart?
YDI, you accidentally or on purpose stumbled in something you may not understand, and then went on attack here.
What exactly is so difficult to understand about the post?
I think the circumstances as I see it was addressed pretty well by that other commenter who replied twice.
The Trump admin already vetoed several UN security council votes for a ceasefire while approx. 70,000 were murdered by Israeli forces? Damn that was fast! Oh, that was Biden. You mean that you hope that they get killed under Trump so you can say “told you so.”
The point of this comm is to discuss whether mod actions were or were not deserved, not to discuss different political opinions. Regardless of your opinions, there’s nothing worth banning a dozen people over in that comment section.
Sir, this is not a Wendy’s. Also, your post title
palestine.ee - The new r/conservativeindicates you have different motives.r/conservative is infamous for being an echo chamber and banning anybody who vaguely disagreed with their viewpoint. Hence the comparison. Because this certainly looks to be similar to how r/conservative was being modded.
Same story with r/politics, or c/politics for that matter. I didn’t realize they were conservative.
I blocked those ages ago too. I’m honestly not sure what you’re trying to get at. Are you just looking for a gotcha? Not a single one of your comments has been on topic so far.
How long before you start blaming Palestinians for Trump getting elected?
Could you go troll elsewhere? I’m not interested.
