Fuckcars mod grue deletes opposing opinions as "misinformation"
10mon 1d ago by lemmy.world/u/PumaStoleMyBluff in modabuse
Moderator of /c/fuckcars@lemmy.world /u/grue@lemmy.world deleted a comment solely because it expressed an opinion they disagreed with, despite multiple other commenters jumping in to say they felt the comment was appropriate, even if they disagreed with its contents.
https://lemmy.world/comment/18341906
Note that Rule 1 of the community doesn't even mention anything about misinformation. and in fact explicitly encourages being civil when faced with opposing opinions:
The core idea of that place is good, but it's always right on the edge of devolving into one of those communities.
Sometimes they're sharing pictures of walkable cities and talking about the benefits of public transit. Other times they're coming up with slurs for car owners and claiming that people are being mind controlled by exhaust fumes.
It's already one of those communities.
There is nothing worse than a community with generally good ideas that I agree with just turning into a cesspool of "other-ism".
I hadn't realized that until just today, but reading through that part of the thread made it very clear that they are a single step away from becoming one of those angry subs.
Yup, mod in question definitely does remove content they disagree with (including flagging stating the highway code as misinformation).
It is indeed one of those communities already. Blocked it, blocked the mod, time to move on.
Every time I see "carbrained" I cringe. I get what they are going for it just sounds so stupid.
Yeah... there was some post the other day about Andrew Cuomo's repeated speeding tickets in his Dodge Charger and, for some reason, in the post OP kept calling it a "Ford Dodger". I thought it must have been a mistake, or like they were intentionally getting the make and model incorrect to show how much they don't care (like how my wife calls all sports "sportsball" or my grandma called all gaming consoles "nintendo"). But somone informed me that it was intended as an insult in some convoluted joking manner about driving recklessly, I guess? Idk, the criticism of Cuomo and his behavior endangering pedestrians, bikers, etc. is completely valid, but the insult/"joke" just seemed like a reach to me. I must be too "car brained" to get it, I guess.
This was my problem with it to. On reddit they began posting pictures of flat tires and were encouraging it. They wanted people to go around and deflate tires so people that needed to go to work were inconvenienced. They thought it was fine because you weren't actually damaging the tire.
Other times they’re coming up with slurs for car owners
There's a huge distinction to be made between "car owners" and "entitled drivers." Don't mistake the latter for the former. I guarantee most people who participate there own cars, including me. Why would we come up with slurs against ourselves?
claiming that people are being mind controlled by exhaust fumes.
If you come across such claims, please report them! I don't want that sort of shit infesting the community any more than you do.
Sorry, I meant "electromagnetic radiation". Fumes were mentioned in the title of the post.
https://lemmy.world/post/33187602
This was on your front page for two days. I find it hard to believe you didn't see it.
There’s a huge distinction to be made between “car owners” and “entitled drivers.”
Which one is a "carbrain"? And are you sure everyone there agrees with your definition?
Report them? To the mods banning people such as OP?
-
Yes, report them to me. I'm the mod being complained about.
-
Nobody got banned; a comment was removed and no other action was taken.
-
OP isn't the person who wrote the removed comment.
Removing comments like this is exactly how you curate an echo chamber, and echo chambers are breeding grounds for "everyone else is a new slur".
You're actively manufacturing something pretty gross, which is really unfortunate because of how objectively awesome the concept is.
Mods being mods. Just another Monday.
People WILL abuse any amount of power we allow them. Small amount of power, small amount of abuse. Absolute power, absolute abuse.
Spreading misinformation is inherently uncvil – in fact, it is much more uncivil than using a harsh tone, in terms of its capacity to degrade the quality of discussion.
For what it's worth, that comment was removed specifically for the claim "increasing density without also reducing dependence on car ownership just increases the vacancy rate," which is a false statement of fact, not an opinion, on top of making a common NIMBY bad-faith argument. The commenter was even given an opportunity to cite evidence for his claim, but declined. Comments expressing similar misconceptions but without also making false statements of fact were not removed.
fuckcars@lemmy.world is not a safe space for trolling, misinformation, or other types of bad-faith argumentation, and I make no apologies about that.
By the way, the community in question is hosted on Lemmy.world and my stance on 'misinformation = uncivil' conforms to the Lemmy.world TOS:
8.0 Misinformation
In general we hope that the users will post information that THEY believe is true and helpful, but sometimes this information can be harmful to others. This is technically already covered by our rules under Section 1, but we want to clarify this more, especially when it comes to more serious matters.
And the relevant part of Section 1:
1.1 Attacks on people
Everyone has a right to browse and interact with Lemmy.World and other federated instances free of harassment and/or threats of violence. Please try and be kind to your fellow human, or at least civil. Trolling users is only funny if both parties find it funny. Trolling mods and/or site admins is ill-advised. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioninghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(slang)#Concern_troll
I said it in the thread, but I read this comment as having said that we should not just approve development that we are not going to support with infrastructure. Meaning making sure it can access public transport and having enough parking. If you are not tied into the broader network you will drive. If you drive and there isn't parking where you want to go, then you will park else were and make it hard for people that are visiting places close to where they want to park. Pretty common sense. On lots without parking not selling; that tracks as well. If you are in a car centric place you need a place to park you car. I couldn't live downtown in my city as there really isn't much parking. My job is not downtown, nor is there a grocery store anymore.
It is pretty gross that you are doubling down on an L take and going off on tangents about misinformation because someone (who is not even disagreeing that we should use public transport) took a slightly different approach to the issue. It makes us all look childish and immature. I try to not be harsh on people online. We are not all writers to just have well articulated answers to every possible thing we value. But really their case seems to follow a priori rather well. Do you need a study that the sky is blue?
Edit:
You seem like you have your heart in the right place, so please re-read the comment that was removed, what people are saying about it, and ask someone to read the comment and how they interpret it. Take some time away from the thread and read what people are saying. I think you are talking past many of them. I am trying to be constructive here.
My rebuttal to this comment is back in the relevant thread, here.
The TL;DR is that common sense is wrong in this case, because the way government funding for non-car infrastructure (and especially transit) works requires the density to come first in order to justify the funding, or else the infrastructure never gets built. Insisting upon having supporting infrastructure already in place before allowing non-car-centric development is functionally equivalent to opposing development and supporting the status quo of low-density sprawl instead. You may not like it, but that's how it is -- in fact, not opinion.
Frankly, it's pretty gross that you're calling explaining factual reality "an L take" and doubling down on wishful thinking!
the way government funding for non-car infrastructure (and especially transit) works requires the density to come first in order to justify the funding, or else the infrastructure never gets built.
You got a source on that? I live in the Lone Star State (rating) and no matter how dense an area gets it will not be getting transit. Getting transit to be built as we expand is not only smooth, but ensures it is even getting done and not dropped later.
And to be clear the comment that was deleted was in no way against the spirit of the community or nimby. So yeah you are doubling down on an L take. Pretty much everyone in the thread interpreted the statement similar to how I did. Take some self inventory about what you are trying to do and say.
You got a source on that? I live in the Lone Star State (rating) and no matter how dense an area gets it will not be getting transit.
Excuse me: I didn't mean to imply that having density guaranteed getting transit funding; I meant that failing to have density guaranteed failing to get transit funding. Density is a necessary precondition, but not always sufficient.
And to be clear the comment that was deleted was in no way against the spirit of the community or nimby.
To be clear, the comment that was deleted was making a false statement of fact and using that to falsely support its other misconception. That's damning by itself, regardless of the good intent the author might've had otherwise. I won't allow such misinformation to stand and I can't delete only part of a comment, so the whole thing had to go.
More to the point, I don't care how many people suffer the same misconception. Objective reality exists, facts are not a popularity contest, and I'm not going to tolerate BS just because other people think it feels truthy!
Excuse me: I didn't mean to imply that having density guaranteed getting transit funding; I meant that failing to have density guaranteed failing to get transit funding. Density is a necessary precondition, but not always sufficient.
So you do understand there is nuance in these topics.
To be clear, the comment that was deleted was making a false statement of fact and using that to falsely support its other misconception. That's
Or I guess your too childish too see past your pride.
You know you haven't brought the source I've asked for, nor a source that counters their statement outright. Likely you won't because its ridiculous on something trivial.