Its a shame because they’re prominent voice on lemmy. Good on the admins for not tolerating this. I don’t understand the point of targeting a person you don’t like on the internet just because they said something that upset you and spamming their post with downvotes. If you don’t like someone block their ass and be done with it. I agree with the perspective that its harassment (and an incredibly petty ineffective form of it at that)
…
How many downvotes exactly are we talking about here?
Is it, like, two hundred? Or is it, like, ten?
Edit: Wait, what the fuck? I got bored and checked it more. How did dbzer0 pick literally the most helpful and drama-free of all possible Lemmy users to ban? As far as I can tell, literally the only thing the dude does is post about cool stuff and chat. I didn’t even know he was active as a moderator in any real capacity.
checks profile to see if he actually did confess to mass-downvoting dozens of votes at some user or some other sin that, while objectively not “abusive,” might have been at least arguably not ideal or something
One of the first things I found was:
Ooooohhh… oh. Oh.
Good fuckin’ God man. dbzer0, we love you, quit trippin’. Just relax. Not everyone you don’t like or agree with is “abusive.”
That’s… not how I would describe the user.
They’re banned from blahaj lemmy for repeated and ongoing gatekeeping and they’ve got a mile long modlog…
Specifically, he said (among other similar things):
“Gatekeeping.” Ban.
This whole thing is stupid. I don’t even want to step into or bring up the other big relevant issue that caused strife because it’s even stupider than that.
You guys are fuckin’ with this guy because he did downvoting, and because he expressed what overall sounded to me like pretty reasonable opinions honestly.
People aren’t hating on you here. It’s fine. You don’t have to turn everyone into an enemy.
am I misunderstanding the definition of gatekeeping? It sounds like he doesn’t like neo-pronouns because the complicate language and he sees them as pointless but will still use them?
Is from when blajah was bending over backwards to defend drag?
Drag is banned from blahaj. Gatekeeping people’s identities and pronouns is still against the rules.
Wait wtf why? I thought blahaj was in support of marginalized communities
Drag was a prolific troll, drag just has a right to their pronouns ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yea and the dragon person constantly mocked trans people.
Even beyond the transparent transphobic trolling they were displaying in the first place, even after Ada got reports that they were actively encouraging other users to harm themselves and other objectively rule-breaking behavior, she was still going to bat for them and refusing to take any action (and still taking action against anyone who criticized them), and basically explained that it was because she felt bad that they were getting so much abuse so she was willing to overlook their misbehavior. Eventually, they did something to Ada, and at that point, she suddenly realized they were bad, and evicted them.
Everybody makes mistakes and misjudgements. It’s fine. But I feel like Ada has probably experienced things in her life that make it feel like pronouns are the most important thing, for example more important even than kicking out an obvious troll or making a safe space for queer people who are looking for a place to be but don’t 100% agree with or obey her stance on certain things. I think it makes her susceptible to viewing every situation through that singular lens, and thinking anyone viewing it through any other lens at all must be being evil on purpose (and then going on the attack against them). Q.v., comments elsewhere in this thread.
I have no idea. I tried to talk sense into her elsewhere in these comments, got nowhere, and oh well.
Gatekeeping is when you don’t think what I want you to, so I have to remove you from my community because you didn’t think what I wanted you to (edit: means YOU were gatekeeping, obviously, in case somehow it wasn’t clear)
Abuse is when you downvote people I say you can’t downvote
Ban is okay though, for someone I say it’s okay for. That’s not abuse like downvotes are. Obviously.
Get with the program
/s
And if it was a single comment, you’d have a point, but it was ongoing, repeated and deliberate arguments in a space that had explicit rules against what he was doing, rules that he understood. And rather than following the rules, or posting in other communities, he brought it up over and over again, arguing that he has the right to decide other people’s identities.
And when banned for it, he made sure to keep adding flames to the fire.
Whatever else he is, he is not drama free.
Is blahaj drama free?
People have pointed out some times when he intersected with some drama that I wasn’t aware of, so sure, fair enough. I guess my point is even when I look at those he definitely was not the source of the drama in the situation. He was banned from blahaj for literally just showing up and saying reasonable things. If that’s against the rules of your instance, then sure, you can do that, but don’t try to flip it around where the person showing up saying reasonable things is all of a sudden an asshole somehow.
Nothing in the comment I quoted is “adding flames to the fire.” It’s not “repeated and deliberate arguments.” Nothing is transphobic, nothing is denying anyone else’s identity. That’s why I quoted some of the actual words, to make it clear how ultimately reasonable he was being however you want to spin it into some kind of hate crime. A lot of people feel like, if they think something reasonable, they’re allowed to say it, and it’s weird and controlling for some other person to say that opinion is the incorrect opinion and demand that they not say it within certain spaces.
I get that you’re interpreting it as some kind of deliberate naughty disobedience, but you’re not his boss, you’re not his parent. The whole “moderator” / “ban” paradigm has brought in this nutty thinking where people who run an instance can be the boss of what opinions are allowed or not allowed on that instance. It’s weird. In my opinion.
I hope not.
We’re an explicitly protective, safe space for a minority group that is actively targeted by governments, political institutions, churches, and bigots in general
So of course we create drama. Bigots will make sure of it.
Nah. He was banned for repeatedly, deliberately, and knowingly breaking the rules. Whether or not you think gatekeeping someones identity is acceptable, blahaj.zone has rules against it, and his response to it was to deliberately break the rules and stir up shit.
Tough shit. When someones “reasonable” opinion involves positioning themselves as the arbiter of other folks validity and identity, they’re doing harm. When they choose to repeatedly and deliberately do that in a safe space for those folk, they’re repeatedly and deliberately doing harm and breaking the rules.
All of which to say, even if you’re a gatekeeper like him, who thinks that you have the right to tell other people their own identities, if you come in to a blahaj community and do it, you’re breaking blahaj rules. If you choose to knowingly and repeatedly do it, whilst then complaining about it in various meta spaces, then you’re breaking rules and stirring up drama.
I did it again, typed a bunch of tit-for-tat stuff and then deleted it. Here’s my attempt to get to the heart of the matter (partially from elsewhere in this thread):
If blahaj admins would just be straight-up about it, and say “Listen. This dragon person is clearly a troll, and we’re banning them for that reason, but we don’t want to allow people to decide pronouns on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the rule produces a stupid result, but that’s the rule we settled on and we have good reasons not to bend it in any circumstance or have to have long debates about this stuff every week, so please respect it or we will ban you,” I don’t think there would be any kind of issue. That’s a decent and human-to-human interaction that gets across the point and still respects the good reasons for the rule. To me (and maybe you may disagree with this), it seemed like instead of that they said “HOW DARE YOU MISGENDER THIS PERSON YOU TRANSPHOBIA ADJACENT BIGOT” and then went on to (as in the current post) continue to whine about how horrible it was that anyone was trying to point out that (a) the user in question was clearly a transphobic troll (b) blahaj going to bat for them was ridiculous. And, you still constantly talk about how those people were wrong, and bigoted, and shouldn’t be talking that way even off the blahaj instance.
Same for banning PJ. It would be fine if you said “He was kind of pushy about trying to make his point and although he clearly wasn’t coming from any hostile place, we tried explaining the rules and he kept doing it, so we banned him.” But no. It’s “repeatedly and deliberately doing harm,” complaining about him trying to justify himself off-instance after the ban like he is required to just shut up and take it instead of voicing his side of the story, “positioning themselves as the arbiter of other folks validity and identity,” all this apocalyptic stuff.
I mean… aren’t you positioning yourself as the arbiter of other folks’ validity and identity? You positioned yourself as the protector of LGBTQ+ people but you have no problem booting them from your space if they don’t adhere to your precise details of what that means. (Like, for example, protecting the space from obviously-transphobic trolls, I feel like some of them would think you should be proactive about.) When you boot them for not adhering to that, isn’t that… gatekeeping? Or no?
He was repeatedly and deliberately gatekeeping people’s identities. I don’t know how to make that any clearer to you.
Whether or not any given person is a troll, it’s not an excuse to make people’s identities a reward for good behaviour.
If you decide that taking away peoples identities “because they’re a troll” is ok, then you’re telling the gender diverse people around you that you don’t see them for who they are, and that you’re just pretending to accept them as long as they behave in ways you find appropriate. Normalising the idea that we can decide other peoples identities is literally the goal of trolls, and so when you see a troll and decide that’s a good reason to invalidate people, you’re feeding the troll, and hurting the gender diverse folk around you.
I will respect a trolls identity, even as I ban them, because opening the door to deciding which identities are valid does nothing but hurt vulnerable people.
This was all explained to PJ, several times, and he doubled down. And tripled down. Whilst explicitly denying people’s identities.
He was coming from a hostile place, and refused to leave it, even when it was explained to him.
The fact that you’re equating the creation of protective rules in explicitly safe spaces as being morally identical to gatekeeping other folks identities makes me doubt your intentions. If you genuinely believe they’re the same thing, you’ve got a lot of work to do. And if you don’t believe they’re the same thing, but are comparing them to win an internet discussion, then you’re the one stirring up drama…
Okey dokey.
This is what I was talking about: You’re taking the role of a teacher talking to a thick or disobedient student, instead of just us having a conversation. I do take that tone too sometimes, but usually it’s when I’m being sarcastic or jerky about something on purpose. It’s not actually how I look at my role vs. the other person in the conversation. This is like I said why I think the “privileged user who tells other users what to do” role is a toxic thing that Lemmy creates for certain people in the interactions.
I feel like I explained pretty clearly what in my opinion the issue is, and you’re just reiterating your favored definitions for all of these words (ignoring anything I had to say about the validity) and again how things really operate… which, okay. I feel like there’s not a lot of point in going back and forth about it, you can just read again the message you just replied to, if you want my answer about this stuff.
Blahaj policy is very explicitly that it’s a safe space, and transphobia and transphobia-adjacent content (and other forms of bigotry) will be removed. It’s supposed to be somewhere people can go and have it taken as axiomatic that their neopronouns are valid, and therefore they won’t have to debate them, so while it’s pretty reasonable to say that you’d prefer people grew to be happy with they and neopronouns didn’t become a permanent feature of English because they’re awkward, it’s not Blahaj-friendly, so can’t be said on Blahaj, especially if you’re going to repeat it a lot.
It’s perfectly reasonable for people to like crisps, but it doesn’t mean I have to let people keep adding them to my cake when I’m trying to eat cake.
Yes. That’s one of the problems with the “I am lord and master of this domain, and all will obey me and my nutty definitions of words like ‘transphobia’ into some wild alternate reality” model. Human interaction doesn’t need to work that way, even if it gets more comfortable when you’re aligned with the lord and master to do it that way.
Personally I think that two things are going on here: One, the whole Lemmy model where people are divided into the lords who must be obeyed no matter how arbitrary their rules, and the people who must obey, breeds and normalizes some toxic models of interaction. And, two, basically 100% of Lemmy is already queer-friendly and trans-friendly, and so an instance that wants to “stand out” as a particularly queer-friendly instance has to keep ratcheting up the level of overt queer-friendliness of the rules of their instance until they’re again in a position of giving other people a hard time for not being queer-friendly enough. And so the inevitable conclusion is that the rules have to include things like “dragon is a gender!” and “questioning certain things I say is transphobia even when it’s not!”
Like I say, in my opinion, the whole thing is fuckin’ ridiculous. I have heard the same from queer people who have been drummed out of blahaj for exactly the same reasons (basically, having and stating opinions that aren’t the official lord-and-master opinion.) In my opinion that makes for a bad model for an instance. It’s got nothing to do with the identity of the people who are making the rules that way for the instance, it has to do with the nature of the interactions that it causes.
You act like the majority of us on Blahaj don’t agree with these policies. Like it’s a dictatorship that we’re being subjected to against our will. Queer, and trans, people aren’t one homogenous block of opinions, there are going to be plenty of disagreements and that’s okay. Blahaj just isn’t for them, like Blair White wouldn’t fit in either and Blahaj is better off for that.
Fair enough, but it’s just not impacting blahaj users. It’s not like a private forum on a server somewhere. You’re participating in a big intertwined network, but then reserving the right to run some sections of it according to these super-strict (and to me pretty arbitrary) rules, and so you’re winding up with a situation where blahaj people can talk to off-blahaj people, on some blahaj community, and some off-blahaj person can see it and respond reasonably and then get attacked, falsely accused of being transphobic, and then have it escalate into this thing where (for example, in this exact post) they’re getting kicked off being allowed to run their own forums on some whole different instance, because now they’re officially “bad” with the way they violated the dictates of the blahaj lords as part of the evidence.
If blahaj was its own private area, then sure. “Only come here if you’re okay with the rules.” That makes sense. But they’re participating in a shared network, storing their messages on other people’s servers, having posts replicated into random other sections for random people to see them, but then retreating to the “but this part of the space is MINE!” standpoint when anyone tries to raise any kind of objection to how they set up the rules for it. And also leveling this bigotry accusation if anyone doesn’t obey how they want the interaction to go.
It’s a feature, not a bug, at least when they’re upfront about it. With non-federated platforms, you’re still subject to the domain’s lord and master, but you can’t pick who that is or maintain access to your communities if you upset them.
While Blahaj isn’t the right instance for me, it’s no problem that it exists side by side with other instances, and people who want to use social media with no risk of running into things they’re already fed up with can have a place for that. If you get banned from somewhere, it’s because it wasn’t the right fit for you, and nothing’s stopping you from finding or making a place that is. It’s not like the has to be only one 196, it’s just that the one where all the cool people are is the one where everyone agrees to give everyone the benefit of the doubt on all things gender and sexuality.
Ah yes, defining what is and what isn’t transphobic to a bunch of trans people. Always a good look. I look forward to your panel on teaching black people what is and what isn’t racist next.
This is literally how Reddit works. There are ground rules that Reddit made, and the mods for each subreddit are free to make their own on top of that and enforce them as they please. If you want some open floor of debate, Twitter is right there. Blahaj was made by trans people, for trans people. You are in our home by our grace, like a straight man at a lesbian bar. You can’t be surprised when the owners take umbrage with you repeatedly coming in and trying to debate “what is and isn’t homophobic” with the lesbians. And this isn’t some crazy demand - it’s literally just asking you to call people what they want to be referred to by. I shudder to think how you handle nicknames when Frederick wants to go by Rick instead of Fred. Regardless of how silly you or I may think “drag” is as a pronoun, you still should refer to drag as such because it’s simply basic human decency. Respecting people isn’t some reward you can dole out to the worthy like a lord in his fiefdom.
And the reason that Lemmy seems so queer-friendly is because of the constant battle of the mods and admins across the instances to keep it that way. There are right-wing chud instances out there that you and I have never seen because the rest of Lemmy refuses to federate with them.
Over the freaking Drag troll issue. You’ll forgive us if not everybody shares the same opinion of who’s creating the drama in that particular case.
There’s more than that https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/49571446/20253309
That seems unrelated to the Blahaj comment?
Yeah, I was mostly just referring to the bit about being banned from Blahaj. Shoulda made that clear
Even on that, he was involved in the 196 forced migration attempt
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/35965565?scrollToComments=true
Ah. I block most of the meme comms, so that pretty much passed me by entirely.
Drag, as in someone who is also banned from Blahaj? 🤨
Yeah, they finally got tired of his trolling and banned him on a technicality
(The trolling isn’t and never was the neopronouns)
They do try to gatekeep gender in other ways though.
Nobody’s perfect.
Yeah. I missed some drama because I tend to avoid lemmy.world politics forums because they are unbearable. Point taken.
Check out PJs LW modlog, it’s not all rainbows and sunshine. I know you love to do that anyway.
Nobody accused him of “mass downvoting”, that’s a strawman. What he was accused of was harassing one of our users, looking him up for the specific purpose of downvoting past posts/comments and to leave salty comments and reports on old threads like a goddam stalker, because he’s an angry turbolib who blames the left (and Eugene in particular, for some reason) for the pathetic failure of the corporate-c**k-sucking Democrats to defeat Donald Trump. There is plenty of evidence for all of those things.
At the very least, his behaviour around this has been petty and childish, not great qualities in a mod. And if he was even a slightly reasonable person, he probably wouldn’t have quit our instance in a huff, and started up a personal grudge community to stir up pointless drama all because of a 7 day temp ban. Like just how fragile is his ego, anyway? We’ve all copped short bans without going into a full breakdown about it.
And it’s pretty well known by now (except for you it seems) PJ has a bad temper, and that he’s been losing his shit more and more lately. He even states as such in his profile. While I do feel empathy for the fact he lives in chronic pain, that’s no excuse for harassing one of our users in this manner.
I believe that Eugene was sincere in his complaint, and he was very upset by the situation. PJ has all the power in this situation as a “power mod” and very active poster. Eugene is just a random user who was targeted for his political stance. And the fact you are defending PJ here instead of believing the victim is concerning to me. Much like the “believe women” slogan during the #metoo movement, my default position is to believe my upset users, not to side with the person bullying them. That’s just how we roll at dbzer0 and I’m not gonna apologize for it.
I mean, what’s the difference between your position here and something like, “Harvey Weinstein has made lots of great movies and nobody else has complained about him, so that woman must be lying”? There is no difference. PJ is just busy trying to launder his bruised reputation imo, and you are helping him with that project.
Phillip somehow claims he doesn’t have the time/energy to respond to this, but has been replying to everything else for hours.
I think he just wants to ignore you and say he wins.
Edit: a few days now and he still refuses to. Almost like he’s acting in bad faith!
Lol who knew he was such a pugjesus fanboy?
Anyone who can read.
Assuming you’re not a PJ alt, I was surprised by your comment. It got me thinking.
I’m beginning to wonder if PJ has a psychological disorder. They have stretches of being a nice, helpful person, interspersed with being a melodramatic, rage baiting, borderline troll shit stirrer. They tend to delete many of their shitty comments, showing they know the behaviour is wrong, but are still known and disliked by many for that behaviour.
Exactly, tell me you look at Pug’s comment history and their moderation history and tell me he’s “drama free”.
Notice how Phillip didn’t respond to this.
Ya, pretty sure Phillip is one of PJ’s army of alts. The lad has issues.
Many issues that overlap but uniquely odd ones for each.
They’re a mod for MeanwhileOnGrad of all places and you’ve regularly engaged in the same debates they get embroiled in. This feels like some strange feigned ignorance.
You are dead on. I hate that shit, but it’s mega popular here, especially these chronically online weirdos who think they’re in a holy war against eachothers opinions.
The dudes who have the time to get in fights and document them, or spend their precious minutes digging through mod logs for evidence. They are telling on themselves.
And Pug is doing that right now, he made a community dedicated to doing it.
Yeah it’s feigned ignorance, he knows what he is doing.
He has literally said he wants to start fights online because he finds it fun, and that hell never stop harassing members because he doesn’t like them.
When did he say that? Are you sure he didn’t say some totally different and more sensible thing that you’re choosing to wildly exaggerate into that?
I can actually pretty much guarantee that that’s not what he said. I guess I missed some LW politics community drama that he was involved with, so sure maybe my side was wrong initially, but I’m pretty confident that particularly the second part of that is just some kind of trumped-up misinterpretation of what he actually said.
The first part was like ~6 months back, the second part was eariler this week.
When I called him out for stalking my profile, he responded within the hour on a thread that was 10 days old. I didn’t say his name, I just documented his actions on that single post and comment, going back to my account to downvote anything I agreed with.
He then said anytime I “said something stupid” he checks my account and goes over it to downvote me. I don’t even do that and I dislike him. Check his modlog, it was one of the things he said before a mod removed it.
He also said (According to several other users) he will never forgive the “protest voters” so he’ll fight them online.
Okay, so something totally different than what you said lol.
You’re welcome to dig up the actual statements and show them to me, to shed some more light. If you don’t feel like doing that, then I don’t feel like doing it on your behalf and we can conclude things there.
I’ll try to go through his account of thousands of comments in the last few months, and if I find something before I leave for work I’ll let you know. Is there a way to search someone’s entire account without just Ctrl+F?
Search
Thank you, I’ll try to do that once I’m done prepping my crockpot and if I have time before work.
Oh, I don’t like engaging with him or any of his posts because he tends to be a loudmouth radlib but he is a power user and his posts on other communities are just fine.
It’d be nice if I could, like, put a comment on one of his political posts, though, without it turning into a gigantic, massive thread arguing about the specifics of electoralism and lesser evil and all of that nonsense.
Okay, so now we’ve got “loser,” “twat,” “loudmouth,” has a psychological disorder, “zio,” mental issues, the whole nine yards.
And, somehow, that’s not abusive. PJ giving downvotes and arguing about politics, though, is.
Good to know.
He’s a genocide-supporting Zionist radlib who thinks it’s fun to spend his day insulting people who bring in Marxist/anarchist theory.
By the way, radlib is not an insult. It describes his political position 🙄
Finally, he even admitted that he is a loudmouth (tangentially), so I don’t know what you’re going on about here. Someone who will argue with you for 100 plus comments I would consider to be a “loudmouth”.
It would be insulting to describe what he does as debating or arguing. He spends most of the time using falicious techniques in order to try and point score the best he can, so that he doesn’t actually have to engage with anything you say, and then when you bring up something specific, he’ll just ignore the point.
It’s also entirely inappropriate to follow a user around to small communities that you’re not a part of to downvote when the voting system is supposed to be whether or not a post matches the tone of the community.
It’s unfortunate you’re unable to view nuance.
Lol
Okey dokey
https://lemmy.ml/post/33527767
Yeah, this had put a target on his back in any lefty instance.
Also, following a user from tiny community to tiny community that you’re not a part of just to downvote their posts that you disagree with personally because you got into an argument with somebody is a bit extreme and I agree with the admins that they did the right thing.
It’s hilarious to me that this whole community of people is having a days-long freakout about what a big deal it is that PugJesus commits this multitude of sins (which have gradually reduced in scope from “abusive” “transphobic” “zionist” whatever else into “he’s a liberal” (allegedly) “he argues about politics and I think that shouldn’t be allowed apparently”)… while also accusing him of caring way too much and being a loser therefore.
Y’all should follow your own advice, and get a life and stop freaking out about what some other person on Lemmy did.
Nah we are just enjoying all the bit of Schadenfreude.
You should be telling that to PJ who spends way too much time on Lemmy. I’m not the one who created a community just a removed about being blocked. Let them know to touch some grass while you’re at it.
Also, the irony of you saying this about a power user who posts quite literally hundreds of times a week.
Cool! Now accuse him of caring way too much about politics, and getting in heated debates about it like a LOSER, speaking as you are from your lemmy.ml address. That’ll make perfect sense too.
Ooh, you’re gonna bust out a genetic fallacy. We’re gonna start with the fallacious arguments already?
Oh, so I’m a loser for spending any time looking at this, but he’s not a loser for talking a bunch of shit about politics that he does not understand and cannot take any criticism for and spending a bunch of time being a royal asshole to everybody who disagrees with him but I am loser.
Man, I gotta go make my own little whiny community on pifed, so then maybe the great Philip the Bucket won’t see me as such a loser.
Okay, fair enough. Let me click on your profile and see how anti-political you are in general, so I can be sure not to judge you because of your instance.
Oh. That was quick lol. I didn’t even have to read.
Correct. Spending extensive time criticizing some other user for some kind of imagined sin, through a lens of purely “how can I insult this person and come up with mischaracterizations or framings of real things they did that make them look as bad as possible, or else just making up total bullshit that would have been bad if they’d done it,” is loser behavior. Yes.
Uhhhhh
Really trying not to reach for the genetic fallacy here lol
Okay. My main point was that, caring about politics and being impassioned about wanting to say your thing and stick up for your viewpoint, also wanting to attack the perceived opposite viewpoint, is more than anything the single defining characteristic of a lot of communities on Lemmy. I’ll say it that way. To me, that’s a good thing. I was actually really happy when I came here originally and found tankies and anarchists. It speaks to (a) people who care about politics, which speaking as a terminally online weirdo I really like (b) a diversity of viewpoints. It’s a good thing. Now you’re trying to turn it around into because his viewpoint is one you don’t agree with, he’s all of a sudden a big doo doo head because he cares about it enough to argue about it… while, presumably, caring so much about it yourself that you get impassioned and start typing all heated-up about it if someone disagrees with you.
To me, arguing about politics and having strong opinions about it is fine. It is one of the defining features of Lemmy. It sounds like you’re all of a sudden only deciding that it’s this stupid loser weirdo behavior because he has a different viewpoint than you, and because you can’t handle that, you have to try to spin around in any direction you can to find something to use to attack him with. Instead of just debating with him on the merits of whatever it is (or, alternatively, just leaving it alone like a more normal person).
How’d I do at avoiding the fallacy?
No need! Your instance will happily ban anyone who disagrees with you too loudly, so you don’t need to, the whiny little community is already created for you.
Oh shit I blew it at the end lol
Yes, I was pointing out your hypocrisy, the one that you’re still very clearly showing, where you use the same things that you’re poking at me with, that you just protected PJ for doing.
Well, it’s not imagined if he’s getting, you know, banned for it. And there’s a lot of us here to corroborate how much of a “fun guy” he’s been.
I never claimed I was anti-political, I only claimed that PJ has a propensity to attack people. I will continue to argue with somebody until I feel like my point is across, and if you continue to comment, so will I.
I don’t care about his viewpoint. He’s more than allowed to have his viewpoint. He is allowed to advocate for harm reduction. He doesn’t post sources to anything that he claims, he won’t back up anything that he’s talking about, he just gets nasty. I don’t get nasty until you’re nasty first. I give what I get.
If he would, you know, maybe respond with well meaning comment talking about it in a debating fashion, and then let it go when it’s clear people aren’t going to agree, you would have a point, but that’s not what he does, and that’s not how he argues.
For instance, I happen to know quite a lot about October 7th and Hamas, and so he’s claiming that there was a ton of sexual violence done by Hamas but when the UN investigated it, they did not find systematic evidence of sexual violence, nor did Israel work with them, which is unusual. Not only that, the report he references is one that has been discredited as a source of statistics for sexual violence on October 7th. When I point out that in other similar situations like what happened in Rwanda or in Syria that they were able to track individual people the majority of the time with less surveillance I get called names for daring to ask these questions.
That’s the epitome of the way your boy debates.
He claims there’s a Russian genocide. I point out that the ICJ did not find convincing evidence that Russia was committing a genocide in Ukraine where they did find some semblance of that in Palestine. He immediately just tells me I’m parroting Russian propaganda and that I’m a Nazi. I asked for a source and he says that I’m sealioing.
Believe what you want, but this guy is not good news, he does not argue in good faith, and while he may have people’s best interests at heart, he’s certainly not winning any hearts.
What?
This whole conversation is turning very stupid. Talking about politics is great. Insulting other people directly or making up things they didn’t do is not. That’s true on all sides, in my opinion.
Me pointing out your hypocrisy in suddenly freaking out about PJ talking about politics and that meaning he’s an always-online weirdo doesn’t mean all of a sudden I am being hypocritical about it.
Honestly, I just don’t feel like being in this conversation any more, it feels like you have more energy to try to “win” it and care more about it than I do. I said what I had to say.
I can literally look down the thread and see the sources he’s citing to you. They are pretty comprehensive. I tried to get involved in the same conversation with you, I think I got bored of the conversation before my comment posted, all I can say is that it’s completely stupid (and absolutely on-brand for lemmy.ml) to claim that someone who says there IS genocide in Ukraine somehow means they’re Zionist or pro-Western, or saying there is NOT genocide in Gaza. Putin’s ICC warrant literally listed child deportation as the primary crime. There is also genocide in Gaza, it’s a lot more unambiguous there than in Ukraine, but they are both happening.
Also:
https://lemmy.world/search?q=sealioning&type=All&listingType=All&creatorId=1252800&page=1&sort=TopAll
https://lemmy.world/search?q=sealion&type=All&listingType=All&creatorId=1252800&page=1&sort=TopAll
https://lemmy.world/post/33270073/18378824
HOLY God
All I can picture is two people in a Will Farrel movie or something just aggressively slap-fighting overhand at each other while leaning their faces away and grimacing. I think I wasted time taking you seriously and trying to respond to what you were saying lol.
If PJ wants to talk with you, he’s welcome to it, I think I’ve said as much as I plan to at this point.
Tell Pug that.
Wth is going on with the db0 instance? Db0 the guy seems very chill and understanding, at least in the posts I’ve seen.
Db0 is still very chill and understanding. Seems like the person reported here is having a hard time recently
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/49556709/20248126
That’s legit. The UN report clearly found that people from the Hamas side of the fighting had committed widespread sexual assaults. Bringing up misleading talking points and blog posts to try to spin it around into the report finding the opposite is textbook misinformation.
I actually don’t agree with banning people for this type of misinformation, I think arguing back in kind is the right way in most cases. But if you’re going to ban misinformation (which most of Lemmy seems to think is okay), then this is a pretty reasonable ban.
(It’s probably offtopic to get into an extended argument about the original Hamas sexual assault claims under this post… if anyone wants to re-inaugurate my whole “debatebro” community by having it out with me there about it though let me know and I’m down a little later today.)
That has not been my experience at all
That’s because you’re an slopper constantly trolling in our comms.
Not sure what a “slopper” is. Is that when people make note of sloppy grammar?
This is what you have chosen to believe and regurgitate in spite of a lack of any real evidence or basic reasoning.
How could I be “constantly trolling in [your] comms” having blocked the instance months ago? Your whole claim immediately falls apart as soon as you apply any logic.
A while back I had made a few complaints about AI slop in dbzer0 not knowing about the secret hidden rule of that instance that you cannot make any reasonable complaints about AI or else you will get targeted and swarmed by frothing users and power-tripping admins/mods. Then, absolutely wild claims and accusations, at the conspiracy-theory level, were made by, and/or supported by, dbzer0 users/mods/admins and any cult-like followers of the such with a complete disregard for even simple logic, like Occam’s Razor. After some failed attempts to defend myself with reasoning from those insane claims and accusations, while admins participated or supported the mob, I had blocked the instance. Since then, I still get dbzer0 cult people following me around and harassing me with the same baseless claims you’re flinging at me now.
db0 did absolutely nothing but help support the mob-behavior,. They even supported the dbzer0 brigade of fuck_AI by showing up themself and acting like a typical politician making false claims and conveniently ignoring points in order to spin the narrative to support the aforementioned behavior.
So, yeah. I’m not a fan of db0 or the entire instance, thanks to shitty behavior like you’re showing here.
Slopper are assholes who go around hijacking comment threads to tell everyone about what they think of genAI “slop”. So I think you fit the description just fine.
Let’s analyze this encounter here to show how you and your like really like to act.
Based on this alone, you have already established that you are the asshole here.
But let’s take a little walk down this road a bit and analyze this further.
Your whole position is that you are allowed to be a childish asshole to me because I make comments about my frustration with AI slop. First, it’s really only occasionally when I make a few comments here and there about AI slop, and many times it’s literally because the AI slop has been posted in a community that explicitly forbids it — I’m such an asshole for that! But, let’s assume my intention is to be annoying about it and bother people by basically saying “ugh more AI slop”, is that really a good reason to act like you have been here, let alone fucking everywhere I go where you seem to not stop harassing me about having a fucking different opinion than you?
The simple fact is: I just don’t like AI the same way you and other people do and it can be very frustrating at times. There is not some sort of shadow cabal with the sole purpose of following around AI users and working together to mob and brigade AI communities. That’s much closer to what you and many dbzer0 users are actually doing(examples: [1], [2], I had more easy links but I can’t link to them due to being deleted because a user was banned or the mods removed them). The claims of brigades is literally just because of a coincidence due to the fact there are a significant amount of people who are frustrated by AI. That’s the simplest and most straightforward explanation that you and others are conveniently ignoring.
Additionally, there are plenty of valid and reasonable reasons to have issues with AI, to list only some of them:
And yet, you think it’s okay to go around acting like a wad of rotting dick cheese to people because they don’t agree with your perspective on AI because “omg people won’t stop saying they don’t like AI!”. Come-fucking-on.
I’m so fucking tired of you and the other dbzer0 nutbags.
Removed by mod
Because you start shit and don’t like consequences.
Oof.