7 community ban for saying Democrats are better than Republicans
2mon 7d ago by lemmy.world/u/abbotsbury in yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Comment and thread in question: https://lemmy.world/comment/23138585
Ban from that community, memes@lemmy.ml:
Rule 1 of said community: Be civil and nice.
Rule 1 of said instance: No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
I was clearly not bigoted in any manner, and I believe more civil than the way I was treated, was it the Code of Conduct? Excerpts:
Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be mean or rude.
Respect that people have differences of opinion and that every design or implementation choice carries a trade-off and numerous costs. There is seldom a right answer.
I think I was kind with the people I disagreed with, even if they could not be in return, yet those comments (some including ableist slurs) remain. I think this is enough to demonstrate it is merely a difference in ideology which motivated the ban. Well, bans, because it seems they copied and pasted the same ban in all the communities they have access to:
It's not a general lemmy.ml ban, just those in particular.
I understand this kind of behavior in safe space communities that don't want outsiders bellyaching about the pragmatism of electoral politics, but that's not the case in any of the communities I've been banned from, nor is it a part of the instance rules or CoC.
PTB or triggered shitlib? Not an exclusive or, of course.
lemmy.ml is an instance well-known for being, shall we say… unreasonable when it comes to politics.
The admins and a large portion of the user base are tankies— people who claim to be extreme leftists/communists but really worship the likes of Stalin, Xi and the oppressive authoritarian government of regimes, such as the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea. They are very much intolerant any criticism whatsoever or anyone else’s political views. Unfortunately, the administrators of that instance are also the main developers for Lemmy itself.
This is why the code has been forked to another platform alternatives to lemmy have been developed, such as PieFed, which is federated and interoperates with Lemmy, and is not dependent on the crazy ass developers. It also has better mod and admin features. but even if you don’t wanna switch to PieFed, you can at least avoid communities on Lemmy.ml. I have the whole instance blocked.
piefed is not a fork, it's a completely different codebase. with plenty of its own problems.
oh, my mistake. with a quick google, I see that it's python, not rust, so yeah, obviously not a fork. my mistake!
did you also see the opinionated parts? if you enable the default filter list piefed hides all meme and 4chan communities and enables built in image recognition specifically to prevent people from posting greentexts. it also keeps an internal tally of user "quality" based on what communities they post in.
truly everything is political.
yeah, I don't really consider those to be the "problems" others do, especially since instance admins can simply disable those features.
of course they can, just like how the ml admins can choose not to have their weird swearing filter that nobody else uses. but it's still in there and that's what they thought communities wanted. eg, that's what they wanted for their community. point being, no codebase is neutral and i don't know the intent of the piefed dev either.
ok, but, again, I don't view what the piefed dev did as problematic. the lemmy devs? I do find them problematic for many reasons, including the ones I've already mentioned.
so, enough with the whataboutisms
it's not a counter-accusation trying to paint one in a better light than the other. i want none of it, and the fact that the bias is apparently okay as long as the politics are aligned feels pretty shit.
it's not a counter-accusation trying to paint one in a better light than the other
That’s exactly what it is, especially considering your next sentence
What the piefed dev does is include a couple of optional features which can be easily disabled. Just from what I mentioned here, what the Lemmy devs do amounts to their ongoing behavior on their instance and in their communities. The only option is to simply block them and their instance. It’s a matter of who they are. they are definitely not the same thing.
and the fact that the bias is apparently okay as long as the politics are aligned feels pretty shit.
Except when you do the exact same thing by objecting to what the piefed dev does, but it’s OK when the Lemmy devs do it?
Or just that I have an opinion that you disagree with?
Either or both, I think that’s pretty shit
i object to what the lemmy devs do as well.
To be fair, there's a bit of apples-to-oranges here. Rimu's stuff here that you've mentioned is closer to a general 'anti-slop' mentality than being directed to a specific persuasion, at least in the things you referred to. Having it set by default that upvotes in meme communities don't boost your reputation, or blocking greentext isn't something that specifically aligns with a leftist, centrist or rightist template - if that makes sense.
Now, if you want to refer to the default defederation of hexbear, lemmygrad - then sure. That could be argued.
it's the idea of undisclosed opinionated decisions i'm against. i have no issues with opinionated software, as long as those opinions are clearly stated. the behavior of the devs is a different issue to the things they put in their software, and lemmy is less opinionated than piefed. the devs are a lot more opinionated, but that seems to have resulted in more neutral functionality.
Idk if it's "undisclosed" at this point. This stuff is widely known.
yeah but it wasn't when everyone was moving over, it came out later.
Now, if you want to refer to the default defederation of hexbear, lemmygrad - then sure. That could be argued.
But not without defending both of those instances, and you’d be pretty hard-pressed to find a rational argument for that.
Same. And like you said its easy to remove for instances. I think its like the third screen when you set up the instance. Im having a wonderful time on piefed and a couple of my PRs were accepted no fuss.
Oh, damn, that "user quality" metric is really messed up
It's also fake.
It's a misunderstanding of a setting admins can enable that makes it so meme communities don't add to your karma. That way, you can't karma farm by posting memes.
I'm a piefed admin and My instance has that setting disabled because I like memes.
Not fake when it's in documented code anyone can read, and the creator explicitly states it's fine.
piefed hides all meme and 4chan communities
Fake news
built in image recognition specifically to prevent people from posting greentexts
Based
keeps an internal tally of user "quality" based on what communities they post in.
Fake news.
I'm a PieFed admin and I've read some of the source code, ask Me anything.
so have i, it's in there. again, the filter is not on by default but the preset blocklist includes those communities. and it's called "reputation" in the code.
https://piefed.social/c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
This is lemmyshitpost, a meme community, as viewed from piefed.world. It is also proof that piefed doesn't hide meme communities.
it's only proof that that specific instance hasn't enabled the setting to do so.
It's not even that since it's from lemmy.world not a piefed community
That's the flagship instance. Rimu didn't block meme communities. You've been lied to. If you were right, you'd have evidence.
But you just linked to a lemmy world community not a piefed one.
Piefed bans it from being created when the filter is on. It can't stop or do the image searching if posted on a lemmy instance or if the filter is off.
Rimu didn't block meme communities
He blocks the one he thinks are bad not all of them though
No, reputation gain from them is blocked. Not the entire community. There are literally local based piefed.social meme communities.
Unless it's ones from the banned locations like 4chan?
That's more of a specific post restrictions as opposed to communities. But yes, Rimu chose to block a small number of directly 4chan-comms I believe. I think that's just a manual toggle in that any instance owner could choose to just to block a community.
Which is exactly what we're talking about and grail trying to say is fake news https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/25485026
I don't think the default filter "hides" all meme communities. That's just wrong. I don't think it hides any communities. It just designates "meme communities = low-effort". That's it. 4chan@lemmy.world is blocked because rimu manually blocked it, just like how lemmy.world blocked piracy@dbzer0.com.
It's not the communities but the material being blocked when images are scanned.
designates "meme communities = low-effort"
Seems unnecessary.. The more I learn the worse piefed looks
It’s not the communities but the material being blocked when images are scanned.
The original comment was: "piefed hides all meme and 4chan communities". No it doesn't.
Seems unnecessary.. The more I learn the worse piefed looks
Instances can turn it off if they want. Most do. It's just a little tick-box.
and enables built in image recognition specifically to prevent people from posting greentexts. it also keeps an internal tally of user "quality" based on what communities they post in.
So yes it is what it does by default.
Really hope getting paid to be pr for piefed and rimu
God I hope this guy gets paid for all the shilling he does, otherwise why else would he?
They're and admin and staff too
https://piefed.social/u/Skavau
Instance: piefed.social (Admin) Role permissions: Admin Joined: 1 year ago Posts: 3113 Comments: 2524 Piefed.social Staff
So yes it is what it does by default.
I didn't contest the parts about the image detection or greentext (although again, it's literally just a tickbox). I objected to the claim about "meme and 4chan communities" being blocked. That was the untrue part.
I've only been talking about the image detection though.
Okay, crossed wires then.
Idk, your standard MO is to deflect and obscure anytime anyone questions why something is or was done the way it is.
What? I thought you were also claiming, as the other poster that you referred to claimed that by default piefed blocks "meme and 4chan communities". It does not.
Just talking about how it blocks some images by default.
Although can see how others things they're blocked if the system is designed to push those types of communities
Piefed isn't a fork, it's a completely different piece of software using the same protocol.
I don't think the Lemmy Devs have much to do with the bans on that server, it's mostly the community mods.
Dessalines does bans like this all the time.
I've said before that if Dessalines spent half as much time developing the platform instead of banning people for wrongthink, Lemmy would be a much better platform.
Lemmy donations are a scam. People give them all that money, and they use the money to hire full time developers, who spend all day banning people instead of writing code.
I'm not sure where I heard it was a fork, but I'm obviously misremembering.
fixed
It's an easy mistake to make, I only know they're different because piefed is python while Lemmy is rust.
I'm sure I forgot because I'm pretty baked right now, lol
I thought that was more limited to lemmygrad, sad to see.
oh, no... lemmygrad is just much, much worse. also avoid hexbear. it's like lemmygrad x 4chan
Yeah just avoid communities on that instance and you'll be fine.
I don't know what people expect will happen when they go into leftist communities or even just communities run by leftists and start spouting shitlib electoralist apologia.
The same thing the DNC expects when they trot out their chosen candidate at the behest of the donors instead of a popular progressive
Yes, assuming Democrats and Republicans have 100% identical foreign policy, and the only difference is less oppression on marginalized groups, why does that not make them the clear superior choice in a two party election? Why are you willing to let more suffering happen because the lesser evil isn't lesser enough?
If every election is a decision between the lesser of two evils and both evils become more evil over time then harm isn’t actually reduced in the long run.
The Democrats lost because they were genocidal. The Democrats are to blame for that, for being genocidal, not voters who refused to support genocide.
Do you want genocide? If not, you cannot in good conscious vote for a genocidal candidate. If you vote for genocide, and genocide happens, you got what you voted for.
Don't like it? Take it up with the DNC.
and both evils become more evil over time
Has that actually happened though? There are certainly many issues Democrats have been improving on since Clinton.
The Democrats lost because they were genocidal
Irrelevant, I don't care why they lost, I'm asserting that they would have been better. Thank you for your soapbox though.
The Democrats are to blame for that, for being genocidal, not voters who refused to support genocide
Sure, but those voters are also to blame for the non-genocide issues which get worse when the Democrats lose.
Do you want genocide? If not, you cannot in good conscious vote for a genocidal candidate. If you vote for genocide, and genocide happens, you got what you voted for.
This is simplistic thinking which ignores the reality of the situation. The only thing a voter can do in a general election is pick the party that more closely aligns with their values, that does not mean ALL of the party's values are the voters, but simply the more palatable one.
So yeah, genocide sucks, but not doing your electoral part means all the extra bullshit Republicans do[1] is what you voted when you abstain.
1: since clearly the people who have problems with what I say don't care about minorities being harassed, kidnapped, and killed, I'll keep it simple with "doing nothing about the climate catastrophe" and "being egregiously pro-business/anti-consumer," maybe with a side of "overwhelmingly anti-labor."
Don’t like it? Take it up with the DNC.
Oh thank you for asking, I have actually.
and both evils become more evil over time
Has that actually happened though? There are certainly many issues Democrats have been improving on since Clinton.
There's no way you can be serious. How sheltered are you?
Are you like some rich white guy who has no working class friends or something? I genuinely don't understand.
mate. i appreciate you being open and proving that banning you was the correct choice.
who exactly began the mass deportations? how I live the free healthcare that Biden gave us instead of funding a genocide.
people like you is exactly why this nation is now a fascist shithole.
I think you might be replying to the wrong user, though OP got instance banned, so I think they can't hear you anyways
sorry, I might have misclicked.
the whole system is rotten to the core
There’s no way you can be serious. How sheltered are you?
How sheltered are YOU? America is a conservative country and things change slowly, but they do change. Some thing have improved in my lifetime, I don't think that's a controversial statement. Just because capitalism hasn't been completely overthrown yet doesn't mean there is no change.
I'm a union rep, so not sheltered at all. I have a front row seat to the degradation of society. Things have been consistently getting worse since the '70s at least.
Sure, some things have improved, nobody is denying that. Some things have improved, but many more significant things have gotten worse. The thing is, the stuff that has improved is like +5 improvement, and the things that have gotten worse is like -100.
TVs are cheaper, but food, rent and childcare are more expensive, all relative to wages, just for an example.
I want to go back a step, and try to understand you here. What do you do for work?
Things have been consistently getting worse since the '70s at least.
Well, except the acceptance of queer people, of course. Women's lib is also much more widely accepted, if we're going that far back.
Sure, some things have improved, nobody is denying that
Nobody except you?
The thing is, the stuff that has improved is like +5 improvement, and the things that have gotten worse is like -100.
I don't disagree.
I want to go back a step, and try to understand you here. What do you do for work?
I do unskilled labor.
Sure, some things have improved, nobody is denying that
Nobody except you?
I am trying to have a good faith discussion with you here and you are literally saying I am denying something while quoting me NOT DENYING IT.
No fucking way you're not a troll. Absolutely unbelievable.
I do unskilled labor.
Literally nobody in a blue collar job says this, hahahaha.
Nice try, OP, but the game is up. You're a fucking liar.
I am trying to have a good faith discussion with you
Sorry bud you don't get to pull "good faith" because you later admit that things have improved. If you want to have a discussion then maybe open with "yeah some things have improved" instead of denying it until it's inconvenient. Well actually you opened with "Lmfao you are such a shitlib" so forgive me if you've now decided to be less of a cunt.
Literally nobody in a blue collar job says this
Sorry for not posting personal information, buddy.
So you agree that Democrats have not consistently gotten worse on every issue then? And therefore both evils are not getting more evil over time?
If you really want a good faith discussion, stop making assumptions about why I disagree with you and address my points.
Sorry to butt in but I figured I should start identifying the logical fallacies I've been referencing.
So you agree that Democrats have not consistently gotten worse on every issue then? And therefore both evils are not getting more evil over time?
This is an invalid inference. Dems aren't getting worse on every issue ≠ Dems aren't getting more evil over time
That's ableist honey
Sorry I don't apologize to facsists. The only good nazi is a dead one
oh, did you instance ban them from db0 or just anarchist.nexus? will they see my replies here still, and also be able to reply?
Understood, fair enough. You know what they say, scratch a liberal and all that.
after you honey
You literally excuse fascists you like. Follow your leader and your final sentence.
Nah dude, why would I continue to discuss with you in good faith at this point? You are so obviously arguing in bad faith. You have no points. You are wrong. If you self-reflect, you'd KNOW you're wrong. You know how Trump supporters refuse to confront reality because they're so deep in denial? That's you. 100%.
This is exactly how you get banned. You deserve it. Bad faith liar who supports fascism.
Bye bye, blue MAGA. You fascist freaks are history.
why would I continue to discuss with you in good faith at this point?
Because you said you wanted to understand?
You are so obviously arguing in bad faith
Sorry buddy but that's just me matching your energy, you couldn't even go one reply in good faith. I matched your good faith energy when I got to that portion of your reply, and you immediately call foul. Now that seems like bad faith.
You have no points. You are wrong. If you self-reflect, you’d KNOW you’re wrong
mhmm right, everyone you disagree with obviously knows they are wrong but just won't admit it.
You know how Trump supporters refuse to confront reality because they’re so deep in denial? That’s you. 100%.
Wow so because I disagree with you... I'm some kind of... Blue MAGA? How original, definitely not a thought terminating cliche.
Okay, you know what, I'm a really nice, reasonable guy, so I will give you another chance.
If you try your best to tell the truth instead of lying, try to assume good faith, hold back on personal attacks, don't misrepresent my positions, or strawman my arguments, then I'm sure we can talk this out. If something seems unclear or unreasonable to you, ask what I mean instead of assuming, and I will do the same for you.
Now, let's have the truth: what do you do for work? You don't need to dox yourself, just share what industry you work in. I promise, I won't judge you, whatever it is. If you're a landlord, a cop, that's all fine, let's just have an honest, good faith, dialogue and exchange of ideas. Doesn't that sound nice?
If you try your best to tell the truth instead of lying
Now see, that doesn't seem like such a nice-guy good faith thing to say. I haven't been lying, and I don't appreciate you purporting that.
But okay, sure, I mean I wish we could have started with "hold back on personal attacks, don’t misrepresent my positions, or strawman my arguments," don't know why that wasn't an option, but let's go.
what do you do for work?
Unskilled labor, retail. That's it. There are thousands of different jobs in different industries that are largely identical to mine, because I deal with customers. No, we don't have a union.
Okay, wonderful! Thank you for sharing.
I'm gonna just go ahead and outline a few of my beliefs - but of course this is not an exhaustive list - and you can let me know what, if anything, you disagree with, and we can take it from there. I hope that sounds good to you.
I believe that, under capitalism, money is power.
I believe that the more money you have, the easier it is to make more money.
I believe that almost anyone with any power would be willing to use that power to benefit themselves.
I believe that both mainstream political parties in the US have been nearly completely captured by the extremely wealthy.
I believe that the mainstream media serve the interests of the extremely wealthy.
I believe that the extremely wealthy have an outsized influence over independent media and social media platforms.
I believe that the extremely wealthy generally prefer fascism to socialism, because socialism threatens their class interests (i.e. their ability to accumulate and hoard wealth, and therefore power)
What do you think? Do you agree or disagree with these positions?
I believe that, under capitalism, money is power.
Yeah
I believe that the more money you have, the easier it is to make more money.
Yeah
I believe that almost anyone with any power would be willing to use that power to benefit themselves.
I guess? Seems kinda vague, like yeah people will do what they can for their own self interest, but there are exceptions and limits I think.
I believe that both mainstream political parties in the US have been nearly completely captured by the extremely wealthy.
Yeah, but I think change is possible, and even barring change, sometimes enough pressure can move them on certain issues.
I believe that the mainstream media serve the interests of the extremely wealthy.
Generally yeah
I believe that the extremely wealthy have an outsized influence over independent media and social media platforms.
Yeah
I believe that the extremely wealthy generally prefer fascism to socialism, because socialism threatens their class interests (i.e. their ability to accumulate and hoard wealth, and therefore power)
Yeah
Thank you for your responses, I appreciate it. Glad to see we broadly agree!
I guess? Seems kinda vague, like yeah people will do what they can for their own self interest, but there are exceptions and limits I think.
Yes, people will do what they can for their own self interest, exactly. By exceptions and limits, what do you mean by that? Like, people have their own ethical boundaries?
Yeah, but I think change is possible, and even barring change, sometimes enough pressure can move them on certain issues.
I agree with that - "certain issues" being the operative phrase there. I believe that, as long as it does not conflict too strongly with the interests of the extremely wealthy, they are willing to move in progressive directions, or regressive directions, in response to pressures from the voter base and from influential special interest groups.
By the way, feel free to share your own beliefs and positions - or something else entirely - I don't want to dominate the direction or framing of this conversation, I just opened with this because I wasn't sure what else to open with.
Women who are being forced to be baby factories, jump through hoops to vote, must still accept "no fault" divorce (IF they can afford it) and walk away with nothing after decades of unpaid labor, physical, sexual, financial, and psychological abuse... gtfoh.
Well, except the acceptance of queer people, of course.
Despite the bigotry of republicans and the disgusting cowardice of democrats, yes. Not sorry your side lost that one. Don't worry, centrists are still desperate to throw queer people under the bus for you.
Strawman much?
No, I try not to. How do you think I've misrepresented them?
Cope and seethe, you dehumanize people for ideological purposes, your boos mean nothing.
Wow, what an insufferable goof.
Hope things get better and/or you grow out of it.
The person you're being an asshole at is clearly not a fascist.
It seems like you're angry, want an excuse to shit on people and are wrapping it in politics you don't seem to understand.
Like I said, hope you grow out of it or things get better.
Are you actually leftist or are you just a jerk to people online, because those are very different.
Only you know the truth of your own actions but if the extent of your activism is being a dingleberry online, that ain't leftism.
That's not what was being asked.
Again, if your "leftism" is just you being a jerk online, that ain't leftism.
Lol, youngling a) it's the internet, you're free to say what you want about your leftism, only you know the truth. And if the truth is that your leftism mostly only extends to being a jerk online, that's sad and ain't leftism.
B) sorry, no idea what badjacketing is, might spend too much time outside to know?
C) there is something hysterical about you wandering around calling everyone fascists etc for being the wrong kind of Left but then threatening bans when someone points out that being a leftist requires more than being rude on the internet.
D) Anywhere you can get banned for pointing out Leftism requires IRL effort, is a sad little place and probably not somewhere worth time.
E) I still hope things get better for you.
Wanting things to be better for marginalized people does not a fascist make.
I'm not defending Democrats, I'm saying they are the better option. Better does not mean good.
That's literally not defending Democrats. I am not absolving them of any of their sins or wrongdoing, simply asserting they do less of it and are therefore preferable.
you need our sympathy for your assnine takes in order to make you feel good about being unconcerned with the suffering of minorities
Umm honey you're the one unconcerned with minorities suffering. Are you feeling okay? You're clearly having issues projecting.
Oh my bad, shitlib motherfucker. How many marginalized lives have you made worse today?
How many marginalized lives have you made worse today?
The irony here is incredible lmao
Just because you disagree doesn't make it ironical.
I didn't say it did ☺ two things can be true
That's true, two things can be true! Like, perhaps these two:
-
Democrats are bad and need to be cancelled.
-
A Democratic administration would have resulted in much less suffering.
Similarly:
-
A Democratic administration would have resulted in much less suffering
-
Voting for Democrats supports fascism
It's important to note, however, that a more accurate statement for #1 is "A Democratic administration would have resulted in much less suffering [in the short term]"
Okay good, now we're getting somewhere. Personally, I don't think choosing the lesser evil is "supporting fascism," because it directly serves to keep the more fascist party out of office. Is less suffering, even in the short term, not worth choosing the fascist that hurts less people? Because if both options are fascist, then your only options in the system are "supporting fascists."
I'm not discounting extra-electoral action, in fact I advocate for it, but in the capacity of an election choosing the lesser evil is the pragmatic choice. Please, please share your long term harm reduction plans, I'd love to have better people to vote for, but right now it's D and R.
Personally, I don't think choosing the lesser evil is "supporting fascism," because it directly serves to keep the more fascist party out of office.
"supporting the less fascist option" = "supporting fascism". You're playing semantic games to avoid believing/saying that you're supporting fascism. There is no "voting against" only "voting for" (in this context, obviously- for the presidential race)
Is less suffering, even in the short term, not worth choosing the fascist that hurts less people?
I personally don't think so. It's a valid argument, but I don't believe there is a "right" or "wrong" with this. I enjoy these kinds of discussions as thought experiments, but there's a time & place for it (and this thread isn't it, imo)
if both options are fascist, then your only options in the system are "supporting fascists."
in the capacity of an election choosing the lesser evil is the pragmatic choice... I'd love to have better people to vote for, but right now it's D and R.
D & R aren't the only options though. Yes, they're (probably) the only outcomes regardless of choice, but abstaining and voting third party are both valid options. I understand you disagree- from what I understand, your primary(/only?) concern is the direct/immediate outcome- but, like I said before, this part is a matter of perspective. Other people, like myself, prioritize long-term consequences, principles, etc. over immediate consequences.
please share your long term harm reduction plans
I've already seen others explain this to you, so I don't think it will do any good for me to repeat it in my own words.
Paying taxes to a fascist administration is supporting fascism. I don't blame people for paying taxes because they feel it's their "only option", but it's dishonest to try to absolve yourself of culpability with semantics.
You’re playing semantic games to avoid believing/saying that you’re supporting fascism
I don't think it's semantics, I think there is a very clear distinction.
There is no “voting against” only “voting for” (in this context, obviously- for the presidential race)
I disagree, when only 1 of 2 outcomes are possible, choosing the preferable one is not a complete endorsement of everything they represent.
but I don’t believe there is a “right” or “wrong” with this
Why not? If you value harming less people, how is the "right" choice not the one that harms less people?
I enjoy these kinds of discussions as thought experiments, but there’s a time & place for it (and this thread isn’t it, imo)
It's not a thought experiment though, it's the possible outcomes of the election: D or R.
abstaining and voting third party are both valid options
Not if you want to actually influence the outcome. See, you're engaging in thought experiments, I'm talking very pragmatically.
Other people, like myself, prioritize long-term consequences, principles, etc. over immediate consequences.
Long term consequences such as what a worse administration could do for 4 years? Like all the climate goals that got immediately revoked, is that long term enough? There is a long term impact to letting the greater evil win. How are Republicans better in the long term?
but it’s dishonest to try to absolve yourself of culpability with semantics.
Well at least we can agree on that. Abstaining and voting third party are objectively valid options, as in you are not literally forced to pick between only D and R, but that's semantics, because there are only two outcomes.
I think if your "principles" include less bad things happening, they wouldn't prevent you from choosing the less bad outcome. It seems to me like your principles are more about purity
You know they're a shitlib when they leave their account after not being allowed to guilt people into voting for genocide.
Whatever makes you feel better
Surely you'll post more someday. What will we ever do without someone bootlicking for free.
Over 2 months and you still haven't come back, man I called you out correctly.
Sorry for living in your head rent free
You don't get to disagree with logic. This is very basic propositional logic. I'm not trying to be pretentious- you're just genuinely struggling with logic... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_inference
I don't think I can make this point more clearly, but you're arguing from a narrow consequentialist, pragmatic perspective, with the assumption that it is objectively true or the default position, but it is not.
You behave as if the broad swaths of legitimate philosophic, political, and moral critique of your perspective simply don't exist. This leads me to believe that you haven't come to your conclusions through any actual reasoning, despite your attitude about it.
If you value harming less people, how is the "right" choice not the one that harms less people?... Long term consequences such as what a worse administration could do for 4 years?... There is a long term impact to letting the greater evil win. How are Republicans better in the long term?... I think if your "principles" include less bad things happening, they wouldn't prevent you from choosing the less bad outcome.
Others have explained this part to you and I think it would be a waste of everyone's time for me to bother restating the same answers in my own words
If it makes you feel any better, this person hasn't done anything since being called out for bootlicking the DNC. They just stopped once they were figured out.
Lmao they really abandoned their 3yo acct over this 😂 Maybe they went back to r*ddit
There are better things to do than argue with accelerationists.
Stay mad, shitlib
No leftist would dehumanize marginalized groups like you, I actually care about things being better for people.
sure, you care about people, when black history month or pride month comes around and you want to earn brownie points on twitter
strawman. projecting again? who can tell. well I can for sure tell that you're desperate for someone to tell you you're a good person
I mean I'm the one here actually advocating for things that would make black and queer lives better, that's more than you can say. How sad, you're out-done by a pathetic little shitlib.
Sorry, but the shoe fits. Not gonna waste my time explaining how I've been misrepresented when I can just signal "that's not what I said" instead.
I can't actually see what your [deleted] comments say but even if they were objectionable to their rules in that community, revoking your access to other communities entirely irrelevant to memes@lemmy.ml seems completely PTB.
Especially as you've got BrainInTheBox there running rampant, as usual.
IIRC, on lemmy instances, there is no actual "instance-wide ban" feature. to do a ban like that, you have to get banned from all of the communities you're subscribed to via some scripted tool, so this is how it shows up. this is one of the improvements the platforms like mBin and PieFed have included in their code. apparently, it's still "coming soon" in Lemmy's code.
Yes, it is possible abbotsbury copped an instance ban and thus was banned from all lemmy.ml communities they had previously posted to. Note that the weird way instance bans are handled has been solved on Piefed.
I didn't know Mbin also did it though.
Lemmy 1.0 addresses the issue, when it comes out instance bans on Lemmy will work the same way they do on Piefed now.
That's nearly as far away as the day the Democrats listen to non voters
exactly. as I have never run a lemmy instance, I don't know what the admin tools look like, but I read someone describe it in a comment here several weeks ago.
Yeah BitB was pretty crazy, seemingly waiting around to reply instantly up and down the thread even when I was replying to others.
OP got banned from this community for "Bad jacketing and electoralism", and while I aint reading 125 comments to see bad jacketing, including electorialism as a ban reason is wild af.
Regardless if PTB or YDI, I think grass touching might be in order for multiple parties here for taking online politics LARP too seriously. It's a beautiful spring weather, perfect for a walk.
they wouldn't stop calling me honey
Gross
Look I'm not saying op was right but like at some point we have to acknowledge the elephant in the room. The non-voters/moderates/apolitical/silent majority/whatever the fuck you want to refer to them as is always simultaneously the biggest roadblock to progress and the biggest enabler of authoritarianism. Read and listen to what former Nazis had to say on the subject, listen to the survivors of their attrocities who were the moderate/apolitical group until authoritarianism kicked in their own personal door.
“We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."
I'm curious what you mean by this quote, as it feels a bit both sides doesn't it?
The first half seems to indicate one should just vote dem because lesser of two evils (not voting being "neutrality" in my reading) so then in the second half...
You had a lot of leftists rightly pointing out Kamala would not commit to ending support for Israel's genocide, and we were told to shut up and just vote the lesser evil anyway.
So... Silenced and then what happened
For all their corpo-friendly faults, Democrats are demonstrably less oppressive than Republicans. Vote for the lesser evil, then don't be silent about the support of genocide. But keep the greater evil out first.
Vote for the lesser evil, then don’t be silent about the support of genocide. But keep the greater evil out first.
So it turns out that wasn't a convincing argument for enough voters.
And we're all paying the price for their terrible judgement.
Yeah, we are all paying for the terrible judgement of the pro-genocide wing of the party that tried to force their only policy on the American people. Keep blaming the voters and never appealing to them. That keeps working out great for you.
It's allegedly a democracy, so yes, ultimately the blame is on the voters.
And is blaming the voters putting people you want in office?
Are you ok with any winner as long as the voters know their place?
Exactly. And especially so when its "Dems are just as bad".
No they the fucknare not.
Dems suck ass, but there is absolutely ZERO path towards progressive policy and a net positive through the GOP. Zero. They are an agressive, regrrssive, boat anchor, dragging everyone and everything backwards. Dems at least pay fucking lip service to and throw a bone to progressive policies. A bone that can be turned into a seed for actual positive change.
The GOP would rather grind thst shit to dust and tell you id doesn't exist.
Yeah, let them solve their own damn problems.
Because they don't realize the USA has been imperialist from the beginning and still easy. That it's corporate imperialism mostly with a lot of defense companies running it.
A lot of the problems other countries are facing are because of US!
Dems suck ass, but there is absolutely ZERO path towards progressive policy and a net positive through the GOP. Zero.
And what progressive policies have we had with them in office?
Dems at least pay fucking lip service to and throw a bone to progressive policies.
And then find just enough no votes so they can block those policies, like with the public option and every tangible individual benefit in Build Back Better. Or we need the parliamentarian on board like with minimum wage. Or we need to ask every federal employee until we get the "no" we're looking for like biden did with cannabis rescheduling.
The left saw a party that they suspected was ineffectual on purpose.
Then they turned around and proved it by getting out of their own way and ignoring actual laws to sell weapons for genocide. They could have found an excuse not to. They're amazingly adept at finding them when they don't want to keep their campaign promises.
Yup. If two rapists walk up to me and tell me to choose between them, I'm choosing the one who will give me medical care, education, improved economy for the working class instead of investing class, public infrastructure, nature preservation, and a tease of corporate regulations instead of the one who will empty my wallet and return nothing. Either way we're getting fucked, may as well get fucked like an old housewife instead of a slave.
Yeah,you are right, but we don't get there without passing through the "friendly.housewife rapist" first, so we can at least get back to a "normal" level.
Oh yeah I'm sorry I guess I just imagined that literally every single government on the planet is assisting the pedo ring run by my elected pedo rulers. You're literally acting like an American rn... even demonstrating the same levels of willful ignorance and blind ego as the most red of Maga. Congratulations you're more American than 1/2 of their own population!
Yup. If two rapists walk up to me and tell me to choose between them, I’m choosing the one who will give me medical care, education, improved economy for the working class instead of investing class, public infrastructure, nature preservation, and a tease of corporate regulations
The problem is that neither made a convincing case that they were interested in doing any of that.
We get minor improvements to everything I listed when Democrat terrorists are in office, Republicans destroy existing policies for everything I listed every time they get power. Nature preservation alone makes the Democrats a million times better of an option, we are fucking the planet exponentially less with them in office, this is a fact.
We get minor improvements to everything I listed when Democrat terrorists are in office
So their apologists keep saying to people who are suffering. Rejoice! Prescription drug prices are down! (For 10 drugs! Available only to boomers on Medicare!) What do you mean you can't afford groceries?! Have you seen how great Bezos is doing? The economy is great, now shut up!
Genocide always gets the front seat at the trough. Where you want it. And netanyahu didn't have to listen to excuses about how everything was slightly better for billionaires so he should be happy.
It took me too long to get this, but man when I did, I was fuming. People like to point the positive of what Dems may do but I point out what negatives they OFTEN do. Biden was pro police, bipartisan, even said we NEEDED republicans. "Both sides" he called it. I'm done compromising my morals for fetid waste that is the Democrat party. Does the vote blaming carry over through most of Lemmy because if so, I have about 6 accounts I haven't blocked I need to report.
So you don't live in America but you somehow know exactly what it's like to live there under every variable across every administration? Congratulations, you are as American as the most devout maga.
they were also banned from AN because they wouldn’t stop calling me honey.
Ugh. I hate it when shitlibs add an inappropriate pet name to the end of their condescending apologia for genocide.
What is bad jacketing?
@calmblue75@lemmy.ml explained why your comments were being perceived as problematic but you didn’t didn’t read the room. You might actually be in agreement with the community, but your choice of words reads as “a little genocide is acceptable.”
All genocide is unacceptable. All mass murder is unacceptable. Putting the unacceptable onto a scale of better or worse is a liberal propaganda tactic that doesn’t fly in leftist spaces. Your mistake was conflating the concept of “voting to minimize harm in a captured system” with “my genocide is more ethical than their genocide,” which is a fallacy. No genocides are ethical.
isn’t making the minimally harmful choice always ethical?
i think it’s about morality than ethics but ethics and economics (ironically) used to be connected, and part of the same discipline. Economics being quantifiable theories, and ethics being unquantifiable.
In this case, you could easily say any genocide is infinitely bad. So comparing one genocide to two genocides isn’t really possible… it’s an unquantifiable loss.
however in this case, in the captured system where two parties are pretty much the only possible winner, we can make an ethical argument for voting for the “lesser genocide”, but really only because they’re both propping up the same genocidal regime, but one is much more into it, wants to develop buildings where the people were, as well as wage other genocides.
besides, it’s much better to be able to protest without being labeled a terrorist and disappeared to some secret, third world torture prison (like cecot and liberia).
it’s really hard to think of a worse president.
i don’t see how “i want to stop this genocide and others” translates into “a little genocide is okay”. Or normalizing genocide…
i remember shortly before they switched from biden to harris, harris released a statement about protestors calling them all antisemitic and completely ignoring what they were actually protesting, and i hate her with all of my heart for that.
but she never wanted to arrest them and deport them to a foreign torture prison for life.
even in math, some infinities are greater than others. I’ve seen interviews with palestinians that said they’d prefer Harris for the same reasons.
like if someone said they’ll either shoot you or stab you and you get to choose, you wouldn’t say nothing because that makes a little bit of stabbing okay.
I think the problem is that certain users chose to scape goat voters. In the end, not voting for genocide and voting for less genocide can both be seen as ethical. In either case, what followed is entirely the fault of the party that pushed the genocide as their main platform point even if it was clearly deeply unpopular and frankly ghoulish.
I think it's also wrong to assume the dems would have done the genocide "better" than trump, and kind of silly to even present as an argument. Both are clearly in Israel's pocket and even a little genocide (it would have been a lot under both imo) is really messed up.
The scapegoating also minimizes the genocide. Implying it should have been overlooked is softening it and what I consider Israeli propagada. It turns it into a voting issue, something we can decide on instead of what it is, essentially the world's greatest evil.
I guess the best is to understand that it was a complex situation, but that it isn't up to voters to change what they can stomach but up to the dems to take the genocide out of the equation. Blaming voters sends the opposite message.
This is the best response I've ever seen in relation to the constant voter-blaming.
I agree. In this case I think it was unfortunate wording that was perceived to carry a different meaning than intended. With discussions like this, especially among leftists, “less bad” or “less harmful” is preferred over “better,” since that carries some implied support.
Its absolutely hilarious that there are two types of people in this thread, people who read your comments and people who see ml so assume it must be a PTB. How about you make it easier for everyone and post those offending comments?
People would rather just say ml bad then do any reflection on what's going on around them. Especially when it requires them to change views
You could convince the vast majority of .world users to unilaterally agree with a hardcore Nazi if you said "look these evil ml tankies just censored a poor innocent liberal"
Or simply say nazis shouldn't exist. They come out of the woodwork to say stop calling those you don't like nazis on posts saying nothing but no nazis 🤷🙃
I mean, it works well enough for the liberals. I'd say about 60% of band from .ml are deserved, and the 40% is bullshit.
But .world and MWoG think that if you were banned for advocating for America to invade places to "liberate" them, you're actually a victim.
you don't need to be here. you can just leave.
But then They couldn't troll for a response.
holy based
The mods didn't seem to think so.
The source was based, the meme was not.
Guy came here to complain about how he was banned for electoralist garbage and he ended up getting banned for electoralist apologia. YDM troll.
Just read through the comments- lmao, YDM. Fascist apologia def seems to fit rule 1 of both the instance and community
Side note: What do you think "shitlib" means?
Edit:
Words OP doesn't know the meaning of:
- shitlib
- defend
- support
- apologia
- logic
- consequentialism
- semantics
- option
It's not fascist apologia, I directly stated that I'm not defending anything the Democrats do or fail to do, they are merely the best option in current elections. Two party elections are a classic trolley problem, and choosing to not pull the lever is still making a choice in the system.
Them being the best fascists is some kind of apologia.
And no. It's not the trolly problem and framing it as such is why shitlibs like you threw two elections to Trump. If your framing and understanding of electoralism was right you would be catching W's instead of strays.
choosing to not pull the lever is still making a choice in the system.
So there are 3 options right? Not the trolly problem then.
Something you need to get through your head is that how you think elections work is utterly fucking irrelevant to deciding the best strategies to win them from the campaigns perspective. All that matters is how voters en masse (not as individuals) behave.
Framing elections (wrongly) as set of individual choices as the harm reduction narrative goes is like using a model which describes how an snowflake grows to decide what happens during an avalanche. A person is smart enough to use a turn style when given the space and time to do so. People moving together behave more like a fluid and has resulted in human crushes.
Take the trolly problem and strategic voting, and throw them in the fucking trash for the worthless memes they are.
Them being the best fascists is some kind of apologia.
What does apologia mean, to you?
It’s not the trolly problem and framing it as such is why shitlibs like you threw two elections to Trump
Strawman, you don't know who I voted for in primaries.
So there are 3 options right? Not the trolly problem then.
No, there's two options, Red and Blue. Not pulling the lever is allowing Red or Blue to happen.
Something you need to get through your head is that how you think elections work is utterly fucking irrelevant
It's pretty relevant, only Democrats and Republicans win general elections.
Framing elections (wrongly) as set of individual choices as the harm reduction narrative goes is like using a model which describes how an snowflake grows to decide what happens during an avalanche. A person is smart enough to use a turn style when given the space and time to do so. People moving together behave more like a fluid and has resulted in human crushes.
Take the trolly problem and strategic voting, and throw them in the fucking trash for the worthless memes they are.
That doesn't change reality of outcomes.
You're arguing from a consequentialist ethical framework as if it's the default, while also failing to see the broader consequences of "lesser-evilism"
Not pulling the lever is a valid option even from a consequentialist perspective (as well as, of course, from a deontological perspective or a virtue ethics perspective).
The trolley problem, as a thought experiment, does not exist to justify consequentialism, but to distinguish it from other ethical frameworks.
You are more than defending the Democrats- you're actively supporting them. Your comments demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of both ethics and logic, and you're looking at the problem from an extremely narrow perspective.
You are more than defending the Democrats- you’re actively supporting them
I'm advocating the lesser evil, which in this case in Democrats. That's not defending nor supporting, they happen to be the best choice. If another party bomes a Big 2 (or if voting reform is implemented and they don't need to be) then I'll gladly hop ship to a party better than Democrats. But the current reality is only Democrats and Republicans win elections.
Your comments demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of both ethics and logic
I don't think that's been demonstrated.
and you’re looking at the problem from an extremely narrow perspective.
I'm looking at the problem pragmatically, if it results in less people suffering, that's the vote that should be cast.
On the contrary, I think you're looking at it from an extremely narrow purity perspective. Not pulling the lever is allowing any outcome to happen, even one you know to be worse.
I don't think that's been demonstrated.
You continue to demonstrate it
Voting for dems is literally supporting them. Arguing in their favor is very much defending them.
You'd benefit to realize that your ethical framework is not the default. Additionally, you are blatantly implementing your own framework (consequentialism) extremely narrowly.
A consequentialist (like yourself) could just as easily argue that lesser-evilism has greater long term consequences that render the short term relief irrelevant.
Consequentialism is not the end all be all of ethics. In fact, it can very easily be used to justify genocide. While you are indirectly doing this, I mean much more blatantly (e.g., "suffering is bad, so we should sterilize everyone to end the human race and therefore end suffering").
A deontological framework argues that by "pulling the lever" you are now responsible for killing someone, whereas by abstaining you are not responsible (but those aren't the only options in the real life political scenario, to be clear). I understand that your ethical framework suggests that abstaining makes one complicit in the greater consequences, but this is a perspective (opinion) and not a fact. And again, this perspective ignores the broader consequences down the road that come from lesser-evilism
But they are the only two options, mathematically only a Democrat or a Republican will win a United States First Past The Post election. Those are truly the only outcomes that can happen, barring significant changes which I am also advocating for. You can pretend this is debate club all you want, but if you have the choice to do something to avoid suffering and you do nothing, you are (in part) responsible for the suffering through inaction.
Anyway, strawman because I am not a consequentialist, merely advocating for pragmatic voting.
wow great meme friendo, very cool!
Aww do I have a admirer? Thanks for following but I'm not interested. Besides I'm a minority so it probably isn't safe for me to be with someone who doesn't think I count as people.
It's not like he is responding to all my points, so why bother?
you're following my posts amigo :)
Tankie is when you [checks notes] want people to have better lives.
It's a shame so many leftists seem to have no interest in influencing the system.
Yeah we should instead work within the system. That's working so well work Trump in charge.
Pretty sure Trump won 2024 because a bunch of people weren't happy with Biden and decided not to vote that time. If Kamala had had the same voter turnout Biden got, we wouldn't have war in Iran.
Two years ago there were mass protests in the US against Israel. Public opinion had radically shifted and the politicians were slowly starting to listen. Then the voters put Trump in charge. Now the protesters are too busy protesting for No Kings and getting raided by ICE. Those neutral voters made a bunch of extra work for the protesters and cost us peace in Palestine. USA could have already cut ties with Israel by now.
If Kamala had had the same voter turnout Biden got, we wouldn't have war in Iran.
But dealing with Iran was one of her campaign slogans and policies...
Facts are bad to Democrats, so that doesn't matter. Same for her supporting ice. And Israel. And hating queers. And...
Here's your medal for being banned from .ml:
You can get it in 2 and 5 too, they tend to stack up.
1000% YDI.
I 100% get that we elect our opposition not our leaders. and in the US we are only given "lesser evil", and not voting isn't helping. OP was basically bootlicking dems and being ok with their atrocities.
you normally do have primaries though, you can gate keep the worst shit stains then.
I'm telling everyone to go participate in the primaries. you can't sit on your ass, skip the primaries, then complain why all the candidates are bad
I vote every year, local, state, and national as well as primaries. In my state, you have to be associated with a party to vote in their primaries though so it ensures one party will not represent you essentially.
yhea, that should be the standard. good job. I mean voting in local state federal and primary elections.
You should be able to vote in multiple parties's primaries.
Nope, again, how my state does elections. To be in the GQP primary have to be registered for them, for Dems a democrat. If you independent you get the wonderful not able to vote for anyone's party line in the primaries.
I mean "should" as in an "ideal society". not as in "you can do that in the current system".
Oh, thank you for the clarification. I ultimately believe though there shouldn't be parties, it's all ranked choice voting for candidates not party systems. I wish to plant that tree.
Parties are bullshit, but I think in any voting system, parties would emerge. it takes work to organize a campaign, canvassing, publicity, outreach... one person can do it. but likely wouldn't get far.
Parties are bullshit though.
I wish we had a comm just about this. My gut feeling is the media is purposely burying talking about the primaries so most don't go vote.
this, if only a fraction of progressive people would hit the primaries, the entire democratic party would change. not in a slow reformist kind of way. but as in a radical change like they had when Republicans and Democrats switched sides.
the media doesn't want that. the state doesn't want that. but we absolutely need it.
What does it really matter if they can just use superdelegates anyway or have half the race drop out and endorse the annointed candidate.
I think superdelegates are only for presidential primaries.
for every other candidate there aren't superdelegates. and every elected officials that isn't bought be AIPAC counts.
Yeah I am talking about the presidential election
that isn't the only election that matters, focus on the rest
Cool good talk
this, if only a fraction of progressive people would hit the primaries, the entire democratic party would change.
...the primary rules, retroactively.
"you can’t sit on your ass, skip the primaries, then complain "
stop me
no need, you already said you're doing nothing. that's already stopped.
I didn't say I'm doing nothing.
have a nice day
trying.
The democratic party successfully argued in court that it doesn't have to run honest primaries. It selectively protects centrist incumbents like Henry Cuellar, but not progressive incumbents like Cori Bush or Jamaal Bowman. And that's when it deigns to have primaries at all.
After seeing your reactions to mild criticism to millionaires who don't care about you, you deserve more. Fuck off you diet fascist.
Edit: VGA, if you're going to downvote everyone here, you could explain why you think people are wrong.
Lmfao you are such a shitlib. YDI
Heck, actually, YDM
ptb thank you for calling out radical liberals like braininabox and desaline
is this undercover chad?
i am chud mcfalse
i am not a chad stop spreading misinformation bad guy
.ml
There's your answer
I think this thread is a great example of what not to do in this community. Rather than discuss whether or not the ban was warranted for breaking a listed rule (which in this case was an obvious PTB, they didn't break any rule and got banned from unrelated communities), half the people here simply devolved into attacking OP for their beliefs and ultimately banning them for defending themselves, even after they apologized and attempted to be civil. That's not what this place is for, and the mods have said as much before.
Scratched liberal, what a shock that they're so fascist.
The amount of neo-liberals/liberals on Lemmy actually surprises me. Like, most of these communities are apparent in their disdain for them and that's putting it mildly. I'm personally tired of all the apologia they get from people on here. Less harm is still harm, lesser evil is still evil, less fascist is fascist.
Liberals want this to become Reddit 2, including America apologia, DNC does nothing wrong, and anything vaguely not worshipping white males must be purged.
Are you referring to them calling you "honey"? I would think that's them being a condescending dick, not sexually harassing you. Regardless, I don't see why they would apologize to you in particular given how hostile and a self-proclaimed "jerk" you were to them.
Well, there's a problem here. Problems
First is that I suspect there was both a community and instance ban since the timing is more or less instant on the c/s that aren't the one where the comment was from. You're also tagged as being both instance and community banned in that community when viewed via browser.
So, the extra c/s aren't useful for PTB purposes since an instance ban does that. It comes up a lot.
Anyway, it's .ml, so there's also the fact that it's kinda like jumping into a pool you've seen someone pissing in, then complaining about the urine content. Yeah, there's a lot of PTB and ptb-like modding there. However, it also tends to happen on very well known lines, so there's a factor where making any political comment that isn't 100% toeing the line is partially on the user. They're absolutely zealots regarding some subjects, so if you engage on those subjects, you can't complain much about the ban coming.
Since it's a temp ban, which is gentle from .ml, I'm more surprised about that than a mod there issuing a ban over a democrat defense.
Is it still bullshit that you can get banned for an otherwise on topic and politely phrased political view on a thread under a political post? Absolutely. And you should likely block the instance and be done with them rather than engage again once the ban is over. This is regular there, and expecting otherwise just isn't realistic.
So, yeah, PTB. But also, your comments there amount to rage baiting for that instance, even though I don't think that was your intent.
You're also tagged as being both instance and community banned in that community when viewed via browser.
That cannot be true, the largest .ml community I can see, privacy@lemmy.ml, allows me to vote, post, and comment.
your comments there amount to rage baiting for that instance
I think that's absurd, given the CoC. I mean, it's clearly an "ought vs is" thing, I get that, but still a complete joke.
That cannot be true, the largest .ml community I can see, privacy@lemmy.ml, allows me to vote, post, and comment.
Instance bans don't actually stop you from posting. It just stops the posts and comments you make there from federating out. So if you have been instance banned, whatever you post on privacy@lemmy.ml would only be visible on lemmy.world.
Only community bans function as hard-bans, and an instance ban currently only hard bans you from communities on an instance you have posted to.
Interesting, thank you.
Re: absurdity. That's why a lot of people block the whole instance. It is absurd tbh. Yeah, it's their instance, they can do what they want, but there's a line between making a curated and ism specific space and being zealots. They don't just cross the line, they often stomp on it and attempt to obliterate it.
Someone else already covered the fact that a ban doesn't prevent all interactions, but you can visit the instance via browser and navigate to your comments. You'll see two tags, one that says banned, the other saying something like community banned or something like that. If you're only banned from a community, and not the instance, there's not going to be both (afaik, but I do know that's the explanation I've seen given in the past). So I wasn't pulling it out of my ass.
Things will always break down when the focus is only on the yin and not both the yin and yang. Wearing rose-coloured glasses only takes you so far. Sometimes you have to deal with the pus in order to clean the wound.
DNC are subhuman trash that promote zionist supremacist first rule over the US for 90% of their candidates. True demonic evil that also serves corporatist/oligarchist power. GOP are far worse. Total zionist supremacists with added focus of Zionist first christofascism and white supremacism. Corporatist/Oligarchist supremacism is even stronger than incumbent power protection. All in on dead ender climate terrorist energy, and overt war goals to increase oil profits in complete lockstep with deranged lunatic in chief.
There absolutely is a big difference in voting block power, and in minimizing the oppression level of Americans. You should still vote for the lesser subhuman demonic zionazi evil.
There is strong potential for primary campaigns to oppose Israel supremacism of candidates, and even if opponents get 100x more funding, their demonic zionazi allegiances could theoretically harm their vote totals.
What did you expect by going to .ml instance and try to set a point that goes against the community's ideology? You thought you'd change their minds? Convert them?
To put it simply, what would you expect to happen if you would go to Star Wars forum and told them that Star Wars is shit and Star Trek is better?
They like many others wanted to get banned to show how terrible it is they won't allow op to be awful to others
8
you coming here to expect people to be on your side and it's going horribly also. you pathetic libs are just as bad as the conservatives. you uphold the same systems and parties that enable this shit to happen.
I have never missed lemmy dot ml. I blocked the instance at the first sign of reddit behavior.
Thanks for the laugh.
I've mostly blocked .ml instances. They're super toxic and not really open to discussion at all. I wouldn't worry about it too much.
It's dot ml communities. Fuckem.
We really need another "it's .ml, they crazy, who cares?" Option.
PTB. The Democrats are better than the Republicans, but the tankies at ml don't want you to think so. Being a leftist is a bannable offence at the tankie triad.
they are "better" in the technical sense that they are slightly less openly evil.
like choosing someone to stab you 10 times and yell slurs at you or the better alternative, someone who stabs you 10 times in your back and said "#blm #lgbtq #pokemkngotothepolls" while both line their pockets with insider trading and bribing.
The Democrats are better than the Republicans
By as narrow a margin as they think they can get away with.